BBC Photography Today

ancient_mariner said:
;)

I'd say that the fatuous sneering is at pictures than many would bin if they found them in their cameras, and would be embarassed to display in a public place. If you're someone who has worked at their craft, invested large sums of money, hundreds of hours, sucked up critique of your images, it's really hard to see people giving high profile credit to images that - in your eyes - look like rejects. Just like you might reject the dull-as-ditchwater landscape shots that some love and are proud of.

It's a curious thing, but I have already started to see shots that once I'd have been pleased with as cliched too, mostly through being exposed to this place.
Click to expand...

Peter Frasers buckets were part of a series 'reminders that, as we go about our day-to-day business, we miss almost all there is of actual, physical reality in our lives.'.
Possibly as a one off image you would discard but this artist went out to take these still lifes and present them as a series. http://www.peterfraser.net/?page_id=13

He did an interesting lecture at the University of Wales

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3 https://vimeo.com/15525088
Part 4 https://vimeo.com/15525489
Part 5 https://vimeo.com/15525989
 
ancient_mariner said:
If you're someone who has worked at their craft, invested large sums of money, hundreds of hours, sucked up critique of your images, ...
Click to expand...

How much time, money or effort was involved in making a photograph has no bearing on its merits as a picture.
 
Ed Sutton said:
How much time, money or effort was involved in making a photograph has no bearing on its merits as a picture.
Click to expand...

As art is subjective, could you please explain what merits are applied to an image in your opinion? Are there 'rules' or is it just something you like?
 
If the buckets had been R.P.S red would they have been better received ?.
 
Byker28i said:
As art is subjective, could you please explain what merits are applied to an image in your opinion?
Click to expand...

What the specific merits are is irrelevant. A photo has no more worth as a picture from being hard won than it does from being technically perfect.

Byker28i said:
Are there 'rules' or is it just something you like?
Click to expand...

If there are no parameters then it all comes down to matters of subjective taste - which is pure subjectivity.
 
Byker28i said:
Peter Frasers buckets were part of a series 'reminders that, as we go about our day-to-day business, we miss almost all there is of actual, physical reality in our lives.'.
Possibly as a one off image you would discard but this artist went out to take these still lifes and present them as a series. http://www.peterfraser.net/?page_id=13

He did an interesting lecture at the University of Wales

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3 https://vimeo.com/15525088
Part 4 https://vimeo.com/15525489
Part 5 https://vimeo.com/15525989
Click to expand...

To me seeing them as an whole still doesn't make them great photos,but in the very exclusive world of art as i have already said,art is what that world decide :)
 
Last edited:
Ed Sutton said:
How much time, money or effort was involved in making a photograph has no bearing on its merits as a picture.
Click to expand...

My point is that for some, if they as experienced and able photographers can take pictures generally recognised as OK but ignored outside of a small circle of friends and TP, they can see pictures lauded on the BBC website that they would only delete if they had taken those themselves, it is understandable that they would be upset. It isn't jealousy exactly, so much as the sheer unreasonableness that the shot of a policeman which doesn't even look properly focussed (that might be because of the way it's been reproduced here) and can still be hailed as a great bit of art, while much 'better' work is ignored. It's not the time or money, so much as the sense of values - possibly incorrect values - on the part of the art critic that promotes the apparently poor picture while ignoring images that seem 'better'.

I'd say there IS a sense of injustice regarding art for ordinary people, but there's no way, no democratic process which can be undertaken to remove the tyrants of the arts dictatorship from their position to declare what has and what doesn't have value.

Photography, as someone has said, is where science and art meet, but the art rules the science. I don't know whether that is right or not (and I'm not at all sure it actually matters in the least) but it does very naturally provoke stongly those who do not see a particular direction of art as being more valuable or desirable than, say, a breathtakingly beautiful but entirely run of the mill shot taken during the golden hour.
 
ancient_mariner said:
It isn't jealousy exactly, so much as the sheer unreasonableness that the shot of a policeman which doesn't even look properly focussed (that might be because of the way it's been reproduced here) and can still be hailed as a great bit of art, while much 'better' work is ignored.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't claim it to be a good photograph, either, but that isn't its intention. It's a photograph used as a document. What is important in it is the information it contains rather than any pictorial qualities.

The reason that 'ordinary' people feel aggrieved by some of the art they see is more to do with a failing of the art hegemony to explain the art in ways that are easily understood (their continued obfuscation being a means by which they maintain their positions as arbiters) than an inability of 'ordinary people' to 'get' modern art. People without any formal education in the arts can and do appreciate it when it is demystified - provided they are willing to approach it with an open mind.
 
Ed Sutton said:
The reason that 'ordinary' people feel aggrieved by some of the art they see is more to do with a failing of the art hegemony to explain the art in ways that are easily understood (their continued obfuscation being a means by which they maintain their positions as arbiters) than an inability of 'ordinary people' to 'get' modern art. People without any formal education in the arts can and do appreciate it when it is demystified - provided they are willing to approach it with an open mind.
Click to expand...

And also. a lot of it is pretentious crap!


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
And also. a lot of it is pretentious crap!


Steve.
Click to expand...
Some of it is pretentious. Some is uninteresting or obvious. Some is contrived.

The problem is the refusal of some people to even attempt to understand why technical precision can be completely irrelevant to great photography. In fact, for a great deal of truly memorable photography it IS irrelevant. It's the subject or concept that gets people talking. Not whether the photographer has used the best f number for the situation.

I think AncientMariner hit the nail on the head above. People are thinking "hey, I've done everything by the book, I've got the greatest kit, I've got these really sharp images with great light, I've done some beautiful colour grading in photoshop and the best I can get is a brief excursion into the 'popular' section of 500px and then the photo is forgotten forever!" But they're not willing to listen to the answer to their problems - their photos have no longevity or power because they don't communicate anything interesting or unique. Instead they dismiss advice to concentrate on subject and concept and think the answer lies in haemorrhaging more cash into better lenses or FF cameras. And the fact that a superficially unremarkable picture of two buckets gets talked about on the BBC must be down to the underhand machinations of some "pretentious artistic elite".

I quite like taking pretty pictures myself, I just don't expect anyone to care much about them.
 
Last edited:
ghoti said:
Some of it is pretentious. Some is uninteresting or obvious. Some is contrived.

The problem is the refusal of some people to even attempt to understand why technical precision can be completely irrelevant to great photography. In fact, for a great deal of truly memorable photography it IS irrelevant. It's the subject or concept that gets people talking. Not whether the photographer has used the best f number for the situation.

I think AncientMariner hit the nail on the head above. People are thinking "hey, I've done everything by the book, I've got the greatest kit, I've got these really sharp images with great light, I've done some beautiful colour grading in photoshop and the best I can get is a brief excursion into the 'popular' section of 500px and then the photo is forgotten forever!" But they're not willing to listen to the answer to their problems - their photos have no longevity or power because they don't communicate anything interesting or unique. Instead they dismiss advice to concentrate on subject and concept and think the answer lies in haemorrhaging more cash into better lenses or FF cameras. And the fact that a superficially unremarkable picture of two buckets gets talked about on the BBC must be down to the underhand machinations of some "pretentious artistic elite".

I quite like taking pretty pictures myself, I just don't expect anyone to care much about them.
Click to expand...

I didn't dislike like all the photos on the bbc site,but you said "pretentious artistic elite" and some cases they are out their, and they even fallout over art themselves,i tend to think of myself as an photographer,rather than an artist. :)
 
old bloke said:
If the buckets had been R.P.S red would they have been better received ?.
Click to expand...


No... but since when has the RPS been the arbiter of what constitutes worth in art?
 
ghoti said:
Yes. Amateur photography is oversaturated with dull-as-dishwater but technically competent eye candy. There's a drought of imagination. You've seen one golden hour landscape you've seen them all.
But people, by and large, aren't interested in being challenged. They want to see stuff that doesn't ask them to think too hard. And anything that asks them to step outside their comfort zone is dismissed contemptuously as "pretentious b******t" because it eases their worry that they might be a bit thick. "I don't understand that so either it's nonsense or I'm stupid. So it must be nonsense."

It's why TV is constant inane rubbish. It's why utter bilge like the novels of Dan Brown sell millions worldwide. That's what people want. Same with photography.
Click to expand...

I like golden hour landscapes....world looks its best in golden and blue hours.

The buckets is an interesting image, but the debris at the back doesn't seal it for me. It needs to be less cluttered

Actually, the Sarah Jones one is a cracker, and very expressive.
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
I like golden hour landscapes....world looks its best in golden and blue hours.
Click to expand...
I think they're pretty too. But there's rarely any imagination or creativity in them. They're formulaic. Style without substance. Photography-by-numbers.
 
ghoti said:
I think they're pretty too. But there's rarely any imagination or creativity in them. They're formulaic. Style without substance. Photography-by-numbers.
Click to expand...

How can they be truly creative, you have to compose with what is there and expose according to the conditions. Yes you can use long exposures for moving water, but good landscaping is all about the light quality, tones and balance of exposure plus effective composition.

You aren't creating anything but capturing a moment in time with something already there.
 
ST4 said:
How can they be truly creative, you have to compose with what is there and expose according to the conditions. Yes you can use long exposures for moving water, but good landscaping is all about the light quality, tones and balance of exposure plus effective composition.

You aren't creating anything but capturing a moment in time with something already there.
Click to expand...
Long exposures for moving water isn't creative. It's a total cliché. It's fun to do, but it isn't creative.

Anyway, you've hit the nail on the head. The opportunities for creativity ARE limited with golden hour landscapes. That's why I'd rather see stuff that doesn't necessarily look great and doesn't necessarily follow all the so-called "rules" but actually has a unique concept or subject.

And people aren't really setting out to capture a moment in time: they're setting out to capture very specific conditions. Conditions that have become a photographic cliché.

Again, I've nothing against "pretty" photography. It's just annoying when people hold it up as some sort of standard to show that certain genuinely creative works are somehow "wrong".
 
Last edited:
ghoti said:
Long exposures for moving water isn't creative. It's a total cliché. It's fun to do, but it isn't creative.

Anyway, you've hit the nail on the head. The opportunities for creativity ARE limited with golden hour landscapes. That's why I'd rather see stuff that doesn't necessarily look great and doesn't necessarily follow all the so-called "rules" but actually has a unique concept or subject.
Click to expand...

In landscapes, it's about as creative as it gets. I like capturing a scene, I am interested in travel and like just being in the countryside. I like cityscapes and the excitement of the lights being on and I like cars. It's all I ever photograph...

A degree program would probably completely change my whole thinking and prespective and when I was a young 'un my mind was more open and receptive to new ideas. I made the choice my folks wished for me, a BSC in Chemistry as I was good at it at school. It got me nowhere other than a dead end job in a bank that needed no such education. Still, I only work 4 days and have 3 day weekends, its not all bad. I do envy and admire those who study what they are genuinely interested in. Good on them. Its what education should be about.

Do you remember that guy who took the tiny bird pictures against buidlings. I guess he was being creative.
 
Last edited:
Most photography isn't creative, it just makes a two dimensional copy of what is in front of the camera. Any creativity is performed by nature or a model, make up artist, model maker, architect, etc. In fact, usually, almost anyone but the photographer.


Steve.
 
"To think that you can come up with a better idea than what the world is offering you (in exchange for a little patience) is foolhardy. Life is more creative than you. Spend some time looking around and it will give you images that you could never imagine yourself." Kenneth Jarecke

"The real world is infinitely more interesting than anything you try to invent in a studio." Paul Reas

But the photographer has to decide how to frame the world and when to release the shutter. :)
 
It seems to me that the creativity is the story that you tell and convince others is meaningful in relation to the picture(s) you place in front of them. Pookeyhead's composite images of the coast around Blackpool were very creative in terms of photography (even though the basic images must have 'just' been the scene in front of the camera every 50 yards or so, but without the backstory they would have been very difficult to decipher.
 
Ed Sutton said:
"To think that you can come up with a better idea than what the world is offering you (in exchange for a little patience) is foolhardy. Life is more creative than you. Spend some time looking around and it will give you images that you could never imagine yourself." Kenneth Jarecke

"The real world is infinitely more interesting than anything you try to invent in a studio." Paul Reas

But the photographer has to decide how to frame the world and when to release the shutter. :)
Click to expand...
A creative photographer can also provide a narrative. Sometimes even in a single image.
 
old bloke said:
It was a joke David sorry you didn't get it.
Click to expand...


That's a relief... the thought of the RPS being a measure of what has, and has not got merit was a pretty frightening one!
 
ghoti said:
Long exposures for moving water isn't creative. It's a total cliché. It's fun to do, but it isn't creative.
Click to expand...
Or rather, it's a cliché (along with many others) as used by most of its adopters - the 'painting by numbers' crowd. You shouldn't rule out the posssibility of its being used as part of a valid expression. John Blakemore used it sensitively and successfully back in the 1970's.
 
ST4 said:
Do you remember that guy who took the tiny bird pictures against buidlings. I guess he was being creative.
Click to expand...

Yup, and he got absolutely flamed for it, yet look at the images as a series and they started making sense. I really liked them, yet he was driven away. Quite a shameful moment in TP's history.
 
Steve Smith said:
Most photography isn't creative, it just makes a two dimensional copy of what is in front of the camera. Any creativity is performed by nature or a model, make up artist, model maker, architect, etc. In fact, usually, almost anyone but the photographer.


Steve.
Click to expand...


That's the most absurd thing I've read in a long time.

So all these things just organically arrange themselves in front of the photographer and all he has to do is press the button?

Yeah.... I mean.. all Tim Walker did here just turned up and press the button... nothing else. No direction, styling, concept.. nothing.... all these people just happened to be there as he wandered past. LOL

Same here for Crewdson....(NSFW) I mean.. he just happened to be walking past a film sound stage and saw this... thought he's take a snap.
 
Last edited:
Suppose so... I mean.. a naked human body in a non sexual context would bring down society as we know it: Can you imagine seeing naked bodies on shelves in newsagents?.. oh.. hang on....
 
This whole thread is very much a mirror of human behaviour when it comes to new things people don't want to see or understand.

The basic human response is to attack what they fear. It's happened throughout history and it happens all the time on TP when someone posts something outside of the comfort zone of what might appear in amateur photography magazines.

And I would just like to add that I don't think we've even scratched the surface of creativity, or new ideas, one simply doesn't have to limit themselves to snowdrops in February, fireworks in November etc etc.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
Suppose so... I mean.. a naked human body in a non sexual context would bring down society as we know it: Can you imagine seeing naked bodies on shelves in newsagents?.. oh.. hang on....
Click to expand...

Nah they have to be top shelf and covered now.
Imagine the comments I got when I was reading Nan Golding at work :)
 
Pookeyhead said:
That's the most absurd thing I've read in a long time.

So all these things just organically arrange themselves in front of the photographer and all he has to do is press the button?

Yeah.... I mean.. all Tim Walker did here just turned up and press the button... nothing else. No direction, styling, concept.. nothing.... all these people just happened to be there as he wandered past.
Click to expand...

But that's my point exactly. The artistery is in the arranging, etc.

But there are many instances of photography where the elements are already in place and the photographer just captures them. Landscape, street, architecture, etc.

But I knew that comment would ruffle a few feathers - that's probably why I wrote it!


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
But that's my point exactly. The artistery is in the arranging, etc..
Click to expand...

But your post seems to suggest that has nothing to do with the photographer.
 
Byker28i said:
Nah they have to be top shelf and covered now.
Click to expand...

They don't have to be - it's just that most shops choose to do that... Or if that is an actual law now, someone forget to tell the owners of our local corner shop!


Steve.
 
Pookeyhead said:
But your post seems to suggest that has nothing to do with the photographer.
Click to expand...

Possibly. My point was that the act of photographing is more of a craft than an art. With staged shots, the art is in the arranging of elements, much as it would be with designing a theatre stage set.

With e.g. landscape, nature has done the impressive bit and the photographer's skill is the craftmanship which records the scene as he wishes it to be recorded.

I have no problem with the result of that process being referred to as art but I take issue with the process being called art when it is more of a craft.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
But there are many instances of photography where the elements are already in place and the photographer just captures them. Landscape, street, architecture, etc.
Click to expand...

Steve Smith said:
My point was that the act of photographing is more of a craft than an art.

With e.g. landscape, nature has done the impressive bit and the photographer's skill is the craftmanship which records the scene as he wishes it to be recorded.

I have no problem with the result of that process being referred to as art but I take issue with the process being called art when it is more of a craft.
Click to expand...

But just capturing what is there isn't easy or simple. Apart from having to be where the thing is that is to be captured, at the right time, you have to frame it, and decide when to take the shot to make the picture. It takes a way of seeing to make pictures. There is a difference between the 'craft' of making photographs and the 'art' of making pictures.

http://www.americansuburbx.com/2009/07/theory-paul-graham-photography-is-easy.html
 
Steve Smith said:
Possibly. My point was that the act of photographing is more of a craft than an art. With staged shots, the art is in the arranging of elements, much as it would be with designing a theatre stage set.

With e.g. landscape, nature has done the impressive bit and the photographer's skill is the craftmanship which records the scene as he wishes it to be recorded.

I have no problem with the result of that process being referred to as art but I take issue with the process being called art when it is more of a craft.


Steve.
Click to expand...

I dont agree, I see many poor landscape shots of a potentially excellent subject and even some great landscape shots of a potentially poor subject.

Its about seeing things that others don't.
 
Thanks by the way Byker for the Peter Fraser links - I just watched all the video sections end-to-end for a happily meditative hour.

Interestingly in it he referred to pre-internet times (which I remember well) when it was so much harder to access the material produced by others and know what was going on ...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top