Photo critque

Kin Lau wrote in message ...
Michael Scarpitti wrote:

Try something different, not such banal subjects as sunset and water
running over rocks. Please. These pictures are technically competent,
but show no originality. Don't take picture of the obvious. It's been
done to death, and then some.

He took shots from the zoo.. you took shots from the zoo.
Kettle..pot..black?

Don't tell me your zoo shots were original.

Do you mean those rhino pictures? My zoo pictures are not 'obviously'
zoo pictures. And indeed, the compositions are very tight, not the
sort that one sees all the time.

I have never taken a time exposure of water running over rocks in my
life.

When I do take sunsets (last one maybe 1980?), I try to make at least
an effort to do something out of the ordinary.

PWW wrote in message ...
Not true, Michael. Some of the best sellers can be subjects shot many times
over by other photographers. Sunsets and Waterfalls are always crowd
pleasers. Plus, as I pointed out in my previous post, Mark's photos are not
technically the the very best they can be (no offense Mark.) To say "Don't
take pictures of the obvious) is too simplistic of an answer to help.

OK. Try looking at things as though you had been blind for your whole
life and just got the use of your eyes today.


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


On 12/14/03 9:29 PM, in article
, "Michael Scarpitti"
wrote:

Try something different, not such banal subjects as sunset and water
running over rocks. Please. These pictures are technically competent,
but show no originality. Don't take picture of the obvious. It's been
done to death, and then some.
Take care!

Huh? Boy am I glad you cleared that up! LOL

On 12/15/03 4:24 PM, in article
, "Michael Scarpitti"
wrote:

OK. Try looking at things as though you had been blind for your whole
life and just got the use of your eyes today.


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


On 12/14/03 9:29 PM, in article
, "Michael Scarpitti"
wrote:

Try something different, not such banal subjects as sunset and water
running over rocks. Please. These pictures are technically competent,
but show no originality. Don't take picture of the obvious. It's been
done to death, and then some.
Take care!

Brian J. Larkin wrote in message . ..
While it is hard to disagree with Paul Wayne Wilson who points out
that sunsets and water on rocks are among the biggest crowd pleasers,
I think you have a better point in stressing originality.

But it may not be that sunsets and water on rocks need be avoided as
subjects per se. It may be in how they are treated. An artist once
explained to me that she looks at her subject until she sees it in a
way that no one has ever seen it.Then she tries to protray that
vision.



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.

Michael Scarpitti wrote:

Do you mean those rhino pictures? My zoo pictures are not 'obviously'
zoo pictures. And indeed, the compositions are very tight, not the
sort that one sees all the time.

hmmm.. a tight cropped shot of a large wild captive animal...that'd be a
zoo (or he's stuffed . Yup that's original.

I actually like your rhino shot, but sorry, that doesn't make it "original".

Kin Lau wrote in message ...
Michael Scarpitti wrote:

Do you mean those rhino pictures? My zoo pictures are not 'obviously'
zoo pictures. And indeed, the compositions are very tight, not the
sort that one sees all the time.

hmmm.. a tight cropped shot of a large wild captive animal...that'd be a
zoo (or he's stuffed . Yup that's original.

I actually like your rhino shot, but sorry, that doesn't make it "original".

I guess that depends on what you consider 'original'. I shot very
tight on the eyes, trying to make him flow out of the frame, to
suggest huge size. Most people try to get more of the animal, in the
mistaken belief that completeness is important. I don't deny that
no-one has ever done this before, but I do not see too much shot this
way, whether by amateurs or pros, so I would consider it somewhat
orinal.

I sure hope you are trying to be ironic/sarcastic here and just doing a
rather poor good job of it. That is what you are trying to do, isn't it?

Where are your photos?
---
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.

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


On 12/15/03 4:09 PM, in article ,
"Brian J. Larkin" wrote:

While it is hard to disagree with Paul Wayne Wilson who points out
that sunsets and water on rocks are among the biggest crowd pleasers,
I think you have a better point in stressing originality.

But it may not be that sunsets and water on rocks need be avoided as
subjects per se. It may be in how they are treated. An artist once
explained to me that she looks at her subject until she sees it in a
way that no one has ever seen it.Then she tries to protray that
vision.

-Brian

PWW wrote in message ...
I sure hope you are trying to be ironic/sarcastic here and just doing a
rather poor good job of it. That is what you are trying to do, isn't it?

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.

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

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

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.

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.

No, I'm not being sarcastic or joking.


Where are your photos?

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

---
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.

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.

That¹s 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
--
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.