A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Techniques » Photographing Nature
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Photo critque



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old December 17th 03, 05:18 AM
Al Denelsbeck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Photo critque

PWW wrote in
:

On 12/16/03 6:00 PM, in article
, "Michael Scarpitti"
wrote:


Absolutely not. That is exactly the point, and what you need to do to
escape to the next level, by freeing yourself from amateurish notions
of how good photographs are created


PWW:
Sounds like an elitist point of view. Someone who doesn't do actually
take photographs, and only want to tell others what not to do.

The difference between brilliant photographs and snapshots consists
in the kind of mental processes involved in their creation.


Well duh!

Your work so far consists primarily of high-quality snapshots.


At least photography is my business! How do you make your living? I
will bet it is not with your "Brilliant Photographs." I would rather
have my clients enjoy, use, and pay for my photography, which they do,
than judge my images by your glib comments. Lets see some of your
work.

You cannot make brilliant work while thinking about it. It has to
come from entirely automatic responses and without thought, just like
hitting a tennis ball. Just like hitting a tennis ball. Just like
hitting a tennis ball.


That is exactly the example I gave in and earlier post and just plain
ludicrous. Capturing a scene and putting it on a two dimensional print
takes knowledge of your camera workings and lenses (Aperture, Shutter
Speed...), and it is very important to understand many of the basic
rules artists have been using for many hundreds of years to make
paintings.

You should take your camera out and practice taking pictures without
film in the camera, taking 'imaginary' pictures that you would never
waste film on, just to get used to it. The purpose of this is to get
your reflexes sharpened and yourself used to doing these things
without thinking.


One can not critique ones own "imaginary pictures." And Critiques of
ones own photographs is by far the very best way to improve ones
photography. The more real photos one takes and then do self-critques
on those photographs, the quicker one gets better at taking
photographs, period.

No, I'm not being sarcastic or joking.


Thatıs too bad, you should have been.


Where are your photos?


The site has been deleted. I did not own it. Where can I get some
free space?


Again I state, you must not make your living with taking and selling
your photography. My site pays for itself and much more. If your
statements were accurate it seems you too, could have a site that pays
for itself. You can see my bio and my photos, lets see your photos and
bio. Surely, you can find some free space somewhere. What the heck;
email me 10 of your best images, with a maximum size of 100k each,
500x500 pixels max size, and in jpeg form and I will put them up for
two weeks on my site, so all others can judge your abilities against
your statements. So its time to put up. Sorry all others this deal is
only for mikescarpitti, and is offered only for a limited time.

PWW


Whoops! It would seem Mike now has to vacate another newsgroup
because people wouldn't buy his bull****. Haven't seen too much of him over
on rec.photo.equipment.35mm. Quite possibly because enough people realized
he was a camera salesman who thinks holding an empty camera counts for
something (you can see he recommends this). Also because very few people
over there listen to big talk - we tend to actually use the cameras in
question. With film in them, even.

Sorry, Mike, what was this about a free website? You should know
those things cost money. Like Leicas. You should care enough to spend money
on a site, shouldn't you? Otherwise you're not serious, are you? At the
cost of a few rolls of processing you can have a damn big site for a year.
I fail to understand how a Leicaphile who recommends spending inordinate
amounts of money on a nameplate can find a website to be prohibitive. Or
are the sales commissions just not coming through?

Ah, but I guess the whole point is "high art", is it not? So high
that the very sublime perfection of it exists only for the creator, and
thus can not be expressed in terms as gauche as what somebody might be
(un)willing to pay for it. Other people would call this "fooling yourself",
but then other people tend to try and make sense...

Have fun waving an empty camera around. You can be even cooler by
foregoing the camera, and framing things with your hands!


- Al.

--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at
www.wading-in.net
  #22  
Old December 17th 03, 05:31 AM
Michael Scarpitti
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Photo critque

PWW wrote in message ...
On 12/16/03 6:00 PM, in article
, "Michael Scarpitti"
wrote:


Absolutely not. That is exactly the point, and what you need to do to
escape to the next level, by freeing yourself from amateurish notions
of how good photographs are created


PWW:
Sounds like an elitist point of view. Someone who doesn't do actually take
photographs, and only want to tell others what not to do.


Uh? 40 years? What do you call that?

The difference between brilliant photographs and snapshots consists in
the kind of mental processes involved in their creation.


Well duh!


duh, right. You clearly don't understand what I mean by 'mental
processes'.


Your work so far consists primarily of high-quality snapshots.


At least photography is my business! How do you make your living?


I have worked professionally if that concerns you. I choose not to be
a professinal photographer, though I have been.

I will bet
it is not with your "Brilliant Photographs." I would rather have my clients
enjoy, use, and pay for my photography, which they do, than judge my images
by your glib comments. Lets see some of your work.

You cannot make brilliant work while thinking about it. It has to come
from entirely automatic responses and without thought, just like
hitting a tennis ball. Just like hitting a tennis ball. Just like
hitting a tennis ball.


That is exactly the example I gave in and earlier post and just plain
ludicrous.


You don't understand.

Capturing a scene and putting it on a two dimensional print takes
knowledge of your camera workings and lenses (Aperture, Shutter Speed...),
and it is very important to understand many of the basic rules artists have
been using for many hundreds of years to make paintings.


What I mean by 'thinking' is 'consciously thinking'. I'm talking about
instinctive action acquiured over years that incorporates all of what
you just listed, but does it subconsciously.


You should take your camera out and practice taking pictures without
film in the camera, taking 'imaginary' pictures that you would never
waste film on, just to get used to it. The purpose of this is to get
your reflexes sharpened and yourself used to doing these things
without thinking.


One can not critique ones own "imaginary pictures." And Critiques of ones
own photographs is by far the very best way to improve ones photography. The
more real photos one takes and then do self-critques on those photographs,
the quicker one gets better at taking photographs, period.


I meant this as 'finger exercizes'. To get yourself so fast at
focussing and advancing the camera that you don't even think about it.


No, I'm not being sarcastic or joking.


Thatıs too bad, you should have been.


You don't BEGIN to understand.

Where are your photos?


The site has been deleted. I did not own it. Where can I get some free
space?


Again I state, you must not make your living with taking and selling your
photography. My site pays for itself and much more. If your statements were
accurate it seems you too, could have a site that pays for itself. You can
see my bio and my photos, lets see your photos and bio. Surely, you can find
some free space somewhere. What the heck; email me 10 of your best images,
with a maximum size of 100k each, 500x500 pixels max size, and in jpeg form
and I will put them up for two weeks on my site, so all others can judge
your abilities against your statements. So its time to put up. Sorry all
others this deal is only for mikescarpitti, and is offered only for a
limited time.


I just did this with someone else and the site was taken down a few
weeks ago. I'll send you some stuff if you want, tommorow.

It was he

http://zd.csimultimedia.com/


Bear in mind that I have not maintained a portfolio, snce I am not a
pro (anymore) but have merely collected material that I had laying
around. I make no pretense of having a current portfolio. I am not
that vain. I have no problem realizing that photography played a more
significant role in my past than it does in the present for me.

Many of the images I send you will be scans from printed publications,
the prints from which are long gone.

I teach a little here and there, too.


PWW
--
PWW (Paul Wayne Wilson)
Over 1,000 Photographs Online at,
http://PhotoStockFile.com


On 12/15/03 10:22 PM, in article
, "Michael Scarpitti"
wrote:


I guess what passes for creativity these years just is not what it
used to be.

Some suggestions:
Try not to think of the subject matter as 'subject matter' at all. Try
to find things that do not interest you emotionally or intellectually,
but just visually. Treat everything as superficially as you can. Be
interested purely in the shadows. If you care about it, do not
photograph it. Be as detached as possible and photograph only the most
trivial things you can, but only if they are visually interesting.

No pictures of your kids, pets, house, spouse, sunsets, pretty things,
flowers, etc....

Nothing 'beautiful' at all.

Focus only on yourself and your own body and its ability to use the
camera.

  #23  
Old December 17th 03, 06:15 AM
PWW
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Photo critque

On 12/16/03 11:31 PM, in article
, "Michael Scarpitti"
wrote:

PWW wrote in message
...
On 12/16/03 6:00 PM, in article
, "Michael Scarpitti"
wrote:


Absolutely not. That is exactly the point, and what you need to do to
escape to the next level, by freeing yourself from amateurish notions
of how good photographs are created


PWW:
Sounds like an elitist point of view. Someone who doesn't do actually take
photographs, and only want to tell others what not to do.


Uh? 40 years? What do you call that?


That is awfully vague isn't it? You made your living shooting photographs
for 40 years? How? Lets get some more details. If you have them.


The difference between brilliant photographs and snapshots consists in
the kind of mental processes involved in their creation.


Well duh!


duh, right. You clearly don't understand what I mean by 'mental
processes'.


Your work so far consists primarily of high-quality snapshots.


At least photography is my business! How do you make your living?


I have worked professionally if that concerns you. I choose not to be
a professinal photographer, though I have been.


Well yes it concerns me since you seem to offer advice and critiques of even
my work. Again you could not be more vague about your "professional"
experience. Come on give some real details.

You choose not to be a professional photographer, maybe it is because you
could not make a living at it.

I will bet
it is not with your "Brilliant Photographs." I would rather have my clients
enjoy, use, and pay for my photography, which they do, than judge my images
by your glib comments. Lets see some of your work.

You cannot make brilliant work while thinking about it. It has to come
from entirely automatic responses and without thought, just like
hitting a tennis ball. Just like hitting a tennis ball. Just like
hitting a tennis ball.


That is exactly the example I gave in and earlier post and just plain
ludicrous.


You don't understand.


Ah I see, I am a professional photographer who doesn't understand and yet
you who claims to be this brilliant photographer, but doesn't have a
web-site and chooses not to be a professional photographer understands what
a professional photographer should be like. I see!

Capturing a scene and putting it on a two dimensional print takes
knowledge of your camera workings and lenses (Aperture, Shutter Speed...),
and it is very important to understand many of the basic rules artists have
been using for many hundreds of years to make paintings.


What I mean by 'thinking' is 'consciously thinking'. I'm talking about
instinctive action acquiured over years that incorporates all of what
you just listed, but does it subconsciously.


So by your own statements a photographer could do exactly the same thing in
taking a photograph, same aperture, same angle of view, BUT if they did
thinking about it, then it has no originality. If they did the same exact
settings on a "subconscious level" then it would be "brilliant" even though
both photographs would be identical. Boy that sure makes sense (sarcastic
comment.) I don't any real professional photographer does things like that
subconsciously.


You should take your camera out and practice taking pictures without
film in the camera, taking 'imaginary' pictures that you would never
waste film on, just to get used to it. The purpose of this is to get
your reflexes sharpened and yourself used to doing these things
without thinking.


One can not critique ones own "imaginary pictures." And Critiques of ones
own photographs is by far the very best way to improve ones photography. The
more real photos one takes and then do self-critques on those photographs,
the quicker one gets better at taking photographs, period.


I meant this as 'finger exercizes'. To get yourself so fast at
focussing and advancing the camera that you don't even think about it.


So focusing and advancing the camera is the most import aspects of
professional photography. I think not.


No, I'm not being sarcastic or joking.


Thatıs too bad, you should have been.


You don't BEGIN to understand.

Where are your photos?

The site has been deleted. I did not own it. Where can I get some free
space?


Again I state, you must not make your living with taking and selling your
photography. My site pays for itself and much more. If your statements were
accurate it seems you too, could have a site that pays for itself. You can
see my bio and my photos, lets see your photos and bio. Surely, you can find
some free space somewhere. What the heck; email me 10 of your best images,
with a maximum size of 100k each, 500x500 pixels max size, and in jpeg form
and I will put them up for two weeks on my site, so all others can judge
your abilities against your statements. So its time to put up. Sorry all
others this deal is only for mikescarpitti, and is offered only for a
limited time.


I just did this with someone else and the site was taken down a few
weeks ago. I'll send you some stuff if you want, tommorow.

It was he

http://zd.csimultimedia.com/

Yep that doesn't help. The link is dead.

Bear in mind that I have not maintained a portfolio, snce I am not a
pro (anymore) but have merely collected material that I had laying
around. I make no pretense of having a current portfolio. I am not
that vain. I have no problem realizing that photography played a more
significant role in my past than it does in the present for me.


You have never stated at what you were a "Pro" at! Just saying photography
is much too vague. Give us some real details. What type of photography did
you make your living at? When? How Long? So we can judge the validity of
your statements.

You are not that vain to have a portfolio, which could show your abilities
or inabilities but vain enough to spout your ideas as "brilliant" but others
as "amateurish notions". Ah, I see again.

Many of the images I send you will be scans from printed publications,
the prints from which are long gone.


Long gone. So you must still be shooting right. Still have a camera right.
Where is some new stuff. If that is all you have is the old stuff, I guess
it will do, make sure you give us the dates of these brilliant images.

I teach a little here and there, too.


What do you teach? Give some real details! Where do you teach? Boy you sure
are awfully vague about your Professional Photography Career. I wonder why.



PWW
--
PWW (Paul Wayne Wilson)
Over 1,000 Photographs Online at,
http://PhotoStockFile.com


On 12/15/03 10:22 PM, in article
, "Michael Scarpitti"
wrote:


I guess what passes for creativity these years just is not what it
used to be.

Some suggestions:
Try not to think of the subject matter as 'subject matter' at all. Try
to find things that do not interest you emotionally or intellectually,
but just visually. Treat everything as superficially as you can. Be
interested purely in the shadows. If you care about it, do not
photograph it. Be as detached as possible and photograph only the most
trivial things you can, but only if they are visually interesting.

No pictures of your kids, pets, house, spouse, sunsets, pretty things,
flowers, etc....

Nothing 'beautiful' at all.

Focus only on yourself and your own body and its ability to use the
camera.


  #24  
Old December 17th 03, 06:29 AM
PWW
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Photo critque

On 12/16/03 11:18 PM, in article
, "Al Denelsbeck"
wrote:

Whoops! It would seem Mike now has to vacate another newsgroup
because people wouldn't buy his bull****. Haven't seen too much of him over
on rec.photo.equipment.35mm. Quite possibly because enough people realized
he was a camera salesman who thinks holding an empty camera counts for
something (you can see he recommends this). Also because very few people
over there listen to big talk - we tend to actually use the cameras in
question. With film in them, even.


Yikes, sorry, I did not realize I was feeding the trolls.

Sorry, Mike, what was this about a free website? You should know
those things cost money. Like Leicas. You should care enough to spend money
on a site, shouldn't you? Otherwise you're not serious, are you? At the
cost of a few rolls of processing you can have a damn big site for a year.
I fail to understand how a Leicaphile who recommends spending inordinate
amounts of money on a nameplate can find a website to be prohibitive. Or
are the sales commissions just not coming through?

Ah, but I guess the whole point is "high art", is it not? So high
that the very sublime perfection of it exists only for the creator, and
thus can not be expressed in terms as gauche as what somebody might be
(un)willing to pay for it. Other people would call this "fooling yourself",
but then other people tend to try and make sense...


"Hear, Hear!" (It is an abbreviation for "hear, all ye good people, hear
what this brilliant and eloquent speaker has to say!) Couldn't resist the
quotation. :-)

Have fun waving an empty camera around. You can be even cooler by
foregoing the camera, and framing things with your hands!


Great comment! Wish I would have thought of that.
PWW
--
PWW (Paul Wayne Wilson)
Over 1,000 Photographs Online at,
http://PhotoStockFile.com


  #25  
Old December 17th 03, 03:22 PM
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Photo critque

Paul,
Excellent post. I've felt for years that Ansel Adams couldn't
got a photo into a magazine today (assuming his name wasn't
known)--they would be rejected as not being original.
But people still buy his prints. Yet, for example, he
might get an image like moon over half dome into a magazine if
he colored the moon purple, the sky yellow, the rocks green
and did some bizarre blurring to the print.

Roger
http://clarkvision.com

PWW wrote:

Brian; I guess it depends on the intended clients. Originality is a very
good goal, but can be taken to extreme and thusly ends in ridiculous images.
An Example: a few years back some fancy well known Art Teacher took a camera
and just waved it around shooting photos without a purpose except to get
"original" photos. The images were absolutely horrible (IMHO) but the
newspaper did a big story on him and apparently the galleries thought they
were great. In reality, name sells better than image anyway.

One could say he was original even even creative. But personally, IMHO, I
thought it was ludicrous. And the images without merit.

Another example was when I used to do Fine Art Shows. All the photographers
and artists would send in very arty photos to the jury to get into the
shows, but once in, they showed and sold more "standard" images to the
patrons of the fine art show. If they sent to the jury what they sold they
could not get juried in and if they showed in their booth what they sent to
be juried in they did not sell much. Different clients!

My theory and my journey is figure out, what does tickle my emotions in a
visual scene and be able to isolate and expand those emotional elements
along with the tricks of being able to place a three dimensional scene onto
a two dimensional image. I don't even think about trying to make an image
like no one has every done it before. Maybe, there are reasons why nobody
has done it like before. :-) I don't try to copy others either, I just do
it my own way.
PWW
--
PWW (Paul Wayne Wilson)
Over 1,000 Photographs Online at,
http://PhotoStockFile.com


  #26  
Old December 17th 03, 03:29 PM
Michael Scarpitti
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Photo critque

Forgive me if I seem a little impatient, but I just went through all
of this a few months ago.

PWW wrote in message ...
On 12/16/03 11:31 PM, in article
, "Michael Scarpitti"
wrote:

PWW wrote in message
...
On 12/16/03 6:00 PM, in article
, "Michael Scarpitti"
wrote:


Absolutely not. That is exactly the point, and what you need to do to
escape to the next level, by freeing yourself from amateurish notions
of how good photographs are created

PWW:
Sounds like an elitist point of view. Someone who doesn't do actually take
photographs, and only want to tell others what not to do.


Uh? 40 years? What do you call that?


That is awfully vague isn't it? You made your living shooting photographs
for 40 years? How? Lets get some more details. If you have them.


The difference between brilliant photographs and snapshots consists in
the kind of mental processes involved in their creation.

Well duh!


duh, right. You clearly don't understand what I mean by 'mental
processes'.


Your work so far consists primarily of high-quality snapshots.

At least photography is my business! How do you make your living?


I have worked professionally if that concerns you. I choose not to be
a professinal photographer, though I have been.


Well yes it concerns me since you seem to offer advice and critiques of even
my work. Again you could not be more vague about your "professional"
experience. Come on give some real details.

You choose not to be a professional photographer, maybe it is because you
could not make a living at it.

I will bet
it is not with your "Brilliant Photographs." I would rather have my clients
enjoy, use, and pay for my photography, which they do, than judge my images
by your glib comments. Lets see some of your work.

You cannot make brilliant work while thinking about it. It has to come
from entirely automatic responses and without thought, just like
hitting a tennis ball. Just like hitting a tennis ball. Just like
hitting a tennis ball.

That is exactly the example I gave in and earlier post and just plain
ludicrous.


You don't understand.


Ah I see, I am a professional photographer who doesn't understand and yet
you who claims to be this brilliant photographer, but doesn't have a
web-site and chooses not to be a professional photographer understands what
a professional photographer should be like. I see!

Capturing a scene and putting it on a two dimensional print takes
knowledge of your camera workings and lenses (Aperture, Shutter Speed...),
and it is very important to understand many of the basic rules artists have
been using for many hundreds of years to make paintings.


What I mean by 'thinking' is 'consciously thinking'. I'm talking about
instinctive action acquiured over years that incorporates all of what
you just listed, but does it subconsciously.


So by your own statements a photographer could do exactly the same thing in
taking a photograph, same aperture, same angle of view, BUT if they did
thinking about it, then it has no originality. If they did the same exact
settings on a "subconscious level" then it would be "brilliant" even though
both photographs would be identical. Boy that sure makes sense (sarcastic
comment.) I don't any real professional photographer does things like that
subconsciously.


You should take your camera out and practice taking pictures without
film in the camera, taking 'imaginary' pictures that you would never
waste film on, just to get used to it. The purpose of this is to get
your reflexes sharpened and yourself used to doing these things
without thinking.

One can not critique ones own "imaginary pictures." And Critiques of ones
own photographs is by far the very best way to improve ones photography. The
more real photos one takes and then do self-critques on those photographs,
the quicker one gets better at taking photographs, period.


I meant this as 'finger exercizes'. To get yourself so fast at
focussing and advancing the camera that you don't even think about it.


So focusing and advancing the camera is the most import aspects of
professional photography. I think not.


No, I'm not being sarcastic or joking.

Thatıs too bad, you should have been.


You don't BEGIN to understand.

Where are your photos?

The site has been deleted. I did not own it. Where can I get some free
space?

Again I state, you must not make your living with taking and selling your
photography. My site pays for itself and much more. If your statements were
accurate it seems you too, could have a site that pays for itself. You can
see my bio and my photos, lets see your photos and bio. Surely, you can find
some free space somewhere. What the heck; email me 10 of your best images,
with a maximum size of 100k each, 500x500 pixels max size, and in jpeg form
and I will put them up for two weeks on my site, so all others can judge
your abilities against your statements. So its time to put up. Sorry all
others this deal is only for mikescarpitti, and is offered only for a
limited time.


I just did this with someone else and the site was taken down a few
weeks ago. I'll send you some stuff if you want, tommorow.

It was he

http://zd.csimultimedia.com/

Yep that doesn't help. The link is dead.

Bear in mind that I have not maintained a portfolio, snce I am not a
pro (anymore) but have merely collected material that I had laying
around. I make no pretense of having a current portfolio. I am not
that vain. I have no problem realizing that photography played a more
significant role in my past than it does in the present for me.


You have never stated at what you were a "Pro" at! Just saying photography
is much too vague. Give us some real details. What type of photography did
you make your living at? When? How Long? So we can judge the validity of
your statements.

You are not that vain to have a portfolio, which could show your abilities
or inabilities but vain enough to spout your ideas as "brilliant" but others
as "amateurish notions". Ah, I see again.

Many of the images I send you will be scans from printed publications,
the prints from which are long gone.


Long gone. So you must still be shooting right. Still have a camera right.
Where is some new stuff. If that is all you have is the old stuff, I guess
it will do, make sure you give us the dates of these brilliant images.

I teach a little here and there, too.


What do you teach? Give some real details! Where do you teach? Boy you sure
are awfully vague about your Professional Photography Career. I wonder why.



PWW
--
PWW (Paul Wayne Wilson)
Over 1,000 Photographs Online at,
http://PhotoStockFile.com


On 12/15/03 10:22 PM, in article
, "Michael Scarpitti"
wrote:


I guess what passes for creativity these years just is not what it
used to be.

Some suggestions:
Try not to think of the subject matter as 'subject matter' at all. Try
to find things that do not interest you emotionally or intellectually,
but just visually. Treat everything as superficially as you can. Be
interested purely in the shadows. If you care about it, do not
photograph it. Be as detached as possible and photograph only the most
trivial things you can, but only if they are visually interesting.

No pictures of your kids, pets, house, spouse, sunsets, pretty things,
flowers, etc....

Nothing 'beautiful' at all.

Focus only on yourself and your own body and its ability to use the
camera.

  #27  
Old December 17th 03, 03:36 PM
Kin Lau
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Photo critque

Michael Scarpitti wrote:
Some suggestions:
Try not to think of the subject matter as 'subject matter' at all. Try
to find things that do not interest you emotionally or intellectually,
but just visually. Treat everything as superficially as you can. Be
interested purely in the shadows. If you care about it, do not
photograph it. Be as detached as possible and photograph only the most
trivial things you can, but only if they are visually interesting.

No pictures of your kids, pets, house, spouse, sunsets, pretty things,
flowers, etc....


Having seen your pictures, and the comments that you made regarding
them, would you tell yourself the same thing about your pictures 30
years ago? Do you now regret those pictures? There is/was some obvious
emotional/intellectual attachment to your subjects.

It's easy enough for you to say it now, but what would Scarpitti 2003
say to Scarpitti 1963 or 1973 (where most of your work posted came from)?

Nothing 'beautiful' at all.

Focus only on yourself and your own body and its ability to use the
camera.


Sounds a lot like "Zone" work doesn't it?


  #28  
Old December 17th 03, 03:45 PM
Michael Scarpitti
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Photo critque

PWW wrote in message ...
On 12/16/03 11:31 PM, in article
, "Michael Scarpitti"
wrote:

PWW wrote in message
...
On 12/16/03 6:00 PM, in article
, "Michael Scarpitti"
wrote:


Absolutely not. That is exactly the point, and what you need to do to
escape to the next level, by freeing yourself from amateurish notions
of how good photographs are created

PWW:
Sounds like an elitist point of view. Someone who doesn't do actually take
photographs, and only want to tell others what not to do.


Uh? 40 years? What do you call that?


That is awfully vague isn't it? You made your living shooting photographs
for 40 years? How? Lets get some more details. If you have them.


No, I began at age 14. I'm 54. (Aside from two years in the early 80's
when I quit photography alltogether.)

The difference between brilliant photographs and snapshots consists in
the kind of mental processes involved in their creation.

Well duh!


duh, right. You clearly don't understand what I mean by 'mental
processes'.


Your work so far consists primarily of high-quality snapshots.

At least photography is my business! How do you make your living?


I have worked professionally if that concerns you. I choose not to be
a professinal photographer, though I have been.


Well yes it concerns me since you seem to offer advice and critiques of even
my work. Again you could not be more vague about your "professional"
experience. Come on give some real details.


Photojournalism/media photography, from about 1977-1986, some
part-time, some full time.

You choose not to be a professional photographer, maybe it is because you
could not make a living at it.


It's more mearketing and connections, which I was not good at. My
technical skills were sufficient, but the motivation simply was not
there. I was tired of photography after a while.

I will bet
it is not with your "Brilliant Photographs."


If you read over my post, I never said I made "Brilliant Photographs."
What I said was I caould suggest ways for YOU to do that.


I would rather have my clients
enjoy, use, and pay for my photography, which they do, than judge my images
by your glib comments. Lets see some of your work.

You cannot make brilliant work while thinking about it. It has to come
from entirely automatic responses and without thought, just like
hitting a tennis ball. Just like hitting a tennis ball. Just like
hitting a tennis ball.

That is exactly the example I gave in and earlier post and just plain
ludicrous.


You don't understand.


Ah I see, I am a professional photographer who doesn't understand and yet
you who claims to be this brilliant photographer, but doesn't have a
web-site and chooses not to be a professional photographer understands what
a professional photographer should be like. I see!


Again, I never said that.


Capturing a scene and putting it on a two dimensional print takes
knowledge of your camera workings and lenses (Aperture, Shutter Speed...),
and it is very important to understand many of the basic rules artists have
been using for many hundreds of years to make paintings.


What I mean by 'thinking' is 'consciously thinking'. I'm talking about
instinctive action acquiured over years that incorporates all of what
you just listed, but does it subconsciously.


So by your own statements a photographer could do exactly the same thing in
taking a photograph, same aperture, same angle of view, BUT if they did
thinking about it, then it has no originality. If they did the same exact
settings on a "subconscious level" then it would be "brilliant" even though
both photographs would be identical. Boy that sure makes sense (sarcastic
comment.) I don't any real professional photographer does things like that
subconsciously.


Misreadings of my words. What I was trying to do was to get you to
stop making 'pretty pictures' to as a way to help you make brilliant
ones.

You should take your camera out and practice taking pictures without
film in the camera, taking 'imaginary' pictures that you would never
waste film on, just to get used to it. The purpose of this is to get
your reflexes sharpened and yourself used to doing these things
without thinking.

One can not critique ones own "imaginary pictures." And Critiques of ones
own photographs is by far the very best way to improve ones photography. The
more real photos one takes and then do self-critques on those photographs,
the quicker one gets better at taking photographs, period.


I meant this as 'finger exercizes'. To get yourself so fast at
focussing and advancing the camera that you don't even think about it.


So focusing and advancing the camera is the most import aspects of
professional photography. I think not.


They should be so ingrained that you can do them asleep. Of course,
with the motorized cameras and auto-focus, this is largely redundant.
I use all manual, non-motorized Leicaflex cameras.

No, I'm not being sarcastic or joking.

Thatıs too bad, you should have been.


You don't BEGIN to understand.

Where are your photos?

The site has been deleted. I did not own it. Where can I get some free
space?

Again I state, you must not make your living with taking and selling your
photography. My site pays for itself and much more. If your statements were
accurate it seems you too, could have a site that pays for itself. You can
see my bio and my photos, lets see your photos and bio. Surely, you can find
some free space somewhere. What the heck; email me 10 of your best images,
with a maximum size of 100k each, 500x500 pixels max size, and in jpeg form
and I will put them up for two weeks on my site, so all others can judge
your abilities against your statements. So its time to put up. Sorry all
others this deal is only for mikescarpitti, and is offered only for a
limited time.


I just did this with someone else and the site was taken down a few
weeks ago. I'll send you some stuff if you want, tommorow.

It was he

http://zd.csimultimedia.com/

Yep that doesn't help. The link is dead.

Bear in mind that I have not maintained a portfolio, snce I am not a
pro (anymore) but have merely collected material that I had laying
around. I make no pretense of having a current portfolio. I am not
that vain. I have no problem realizing that photography played a more
significant role in my past than it does in the present for me.


You have never stated at what you were a "Pro" at! Just saying photography
is much too vague. Give us some real details. What type of photography did
you make your living at? When? How Long? So we can judge the validity of
your statements.

You are not that vain to have a portfolio, which could show your abilities
or inabilities but vain enough to spout your ideas as "brilliant" but others
as "amateurish notions". Ah, I see again.

Many of the images I send you will be scans from printed publications,
the prints from which are long gone.


Long gone. So you must still be shooting right.


A little, but it competes with tennis for my attention and time.

Still have a camera right.


and 5 lenses.

Where is some new stuff. If that is all you have is the old stuff, I guess
it will do, make sure you give us the dates of these brilliant images.


Again, you're reading into things I never said. I never said I have
made 'brilliant' images. I was speaking in general terms about the
process. My own opinion of my own work I have kept to myself.

I teach a little here and there, too.


What do you teach? Give some real details! Where do you teach? Boy you sure
are awfully vague about your Professional Photography Career. I wonder why.



PWW
--
PWW (Paul Wayne Wilson)
Over 1,000 Photographs Online at,
http://PhotoStockFile.com


On 12/15/03 10:22 PM, in article
, "Michael Scarpitti"
wrote:


I guess what passes for creativity these years just is not what it
used to be.

Some suggestions:
Try not to think of the subject matter as 'subject matter' at all. Try
to find things that do not interest you emotionally or intellectually,
but just visually. Treat everything as superficially as you can. Be
interested purely in the shadows. If you care about it, do not
photograph it. Be as detached as possible and photograph only the most
trivial things you can, but only if they are visually interesting.

No pictures of your kids, pets, house, spouse, sunsets, pretty things,
flowers, etc....

Nothing 'beautiful' at all.

Focus only on yourself and your own body and its ability to use the
camera.

  #29  
Old December 17th 03, 10:27 PM
Michael Scarpitti
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Photo critque

Kin Lau wrote in message ...


Having seen your pictures, and the comments that you made regarding
them, would you tell yourself the same thing about your pictures 30
years ago? Do you now regret those pictures? There is/was some obvious
emotional/intellectual attachment to your subjects.


No, not really. I learned that real early. It was one of the things
that set me apart, in fact. My attachment was to the process, not to
things or people.

Actually, until I dug this stuff up, I had not looked at it recently.
In some cases I was flabbergasted at how good they are. In others,
well...let's say they were learning experiences.

I achieved proficiency rather quickly and held at the same level for
about 7 or 8 years, when I simply became exhausted. The period
1968-1976 represnted most of my best work.

It's easy enough for you to say it now, but what would Scarpitti 2003
say to Scarpitti 1963 or 1973 (where most of your work posted came from)?


Great job! Why didn't you do more? Why did you push so much film?


Nothing 'beautiful' at all.

Focus only on yourself and your own body and its ability to use the
camera.


Sounds a lot like "Zone" work doesn't it?

  #30  
Old December 20th 03, 10:13 AM
Al Denelsbeck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Photo critque

"Mark Vander Pol" wrote in
senet.com:

Any comments on my photos and/or website would be greatly appreciated.

http://www.mvpol.com

The new photos gallery is what I am most interested in getting
critiqued, but I will take anything!!

I am still learning and last time I posted my website I got some very
good advice and I hope that I can continue to learn.

Mark Vander Pol
Soli Deo Gloria



Hi Mark. I seem to recognize your name, and I suspect that I've been
in contact before, but I admit that none of your images look familiar.

Overall, you have a good selection of images that I would call
'stock' - simple, direct, and for the most part with good technical
control. The images are such that they are open for a variety of uses, and
impressionistic rather than, for instance, being able to show behavior or
identifying traits (this applies more to the nature and wildlife end, or
course). I would like to see more of them with a real hook, a strong
subject that grabs the viewer and directs attention. This would make your
portfolio stronger.

I see a lot of simliarities in your work to my own approach, and some
of the images look way too much like my own stock ;-). I suspect we would
find the same subjects if we worked the same areas.

For a lot of images, you have a predominant color, and I think this
helps quite a bit. It allows usage of the images as accents and decoration,
and can provide a theme or a mood where needed.

I found just a little too much emphasis on centering. I don't
recommend following any particular compositional rules all the time, and
centering can work well in some circumstances, but for some of the shots I
think offsetting the subject would produce more of a scene than a "here it
is" effect.

Some of the shots suffered a bit too much from Velvia's high
contrast. While it's a good film and produces great colors, in contrasty
conditions (like direct sunlight) it has too narrow a range, and you often
end up losing either highlight or shadow detail. At the very least, bracket
in the tough conditions, but I'd also go for the lower contrast films like
Astia at times.

How was the reaction to the wedding portfolio? Your approach was
different, less emphasis on the romantic aspects and more on glimpses and
abstracts. It's always hard to say how well departing from the tried-and-
true (you can also call it 'hackneyed') will be accepted, and how much the
couple might want to see the same-ol'-same-ol'. Which is why I asked ;-)

The portraiture, to me, seemed too direct, but I always prefer not to
have scenic portraiture subjects looking into the camera. I like to be a
'witness' rather than a participant, but that's just my approach.

And finally, your baby shots reminded me of something else. Heard a
child photographer speak last year on his new package techniques, one of
which sold like wildfire to new mothers (he calls it "Baby Parts"). My
first attempt at the technique can be seen at http://wading-in.net/Ian -
the applet is kind of slow loading, especially on dialups, but there's 13
images in all. If the amount of hits on that non-public page are any
indication, the kid's mom approves as well ;-). I think it could be better,
but okay for a first go. And your approach seems to come pretty close to it
as well, but I'd boost contrast in your B&W work.

Good luck with it all!


- Al.

--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Epson color controls, photo enhance, ICM - which one for accurate photo printing? Lindyhop Digital Photography 5 July 3rd 04 03:06 PM
How do I center a photo on a page? Brian Kendig Digital Photography 4 July 1st 04 06:11 PM
Notebook computer for photo editing? Tim Green Digital Photography 3 June 24th 04 09:11 PM
Database drive photo & movie gallery? Daniel Kelly \(AKA Jack\) Other Photographic Equipment 1 April 11th 04 09:24 AM
Photo restrictions in Ireland PK Photographing Nature 0 October 1st 03 08:27 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright İ2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.