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.

In article ,
says...

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.

He obviously has never heard of Sturgeon's Law--"90 percent of
everything is crap".

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

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.

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?

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.

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)

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.

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)

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