AJQS
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 7,314
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
This.
Distinguishing the great skill and creativity from the quality of the equipment of a photographer
This.
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
All money buys you is a bigger print size, lower noise, and some status amongst your peers. It never has, or can buy you talent, creativity or originality... Just as style can't be bought off the rack in Next; These things are are an extension of yourself and your personality, and are taught by life, experiences and being receptive to new ideas when presented to you instead of resisting them.
The shots in the above link are just mere technical exercises though, and when you start to debate creativity, the gear becomes even MORE irrelevant. The great thing abut this link, is it demonstrates that even if you are only interested in photography in the most technical, surface aesthetic oriented way, gear still means sod all really, and a talented photographer will always produce better work no matter what they use. As galling as it is to some, you're just gonna have to suck it up.
/thread IMO
XA2inmypocket
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 774
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm certainly not promoting my skills as particularly great. However, I submit a link to a gallery that I created, using a thirty year old compact camera, that I paid 50p for at a car boot sale. Film used - the C41 is Poundland, the B/W is mainly budget 400S home developed cheaply.
I give you the 50p camera project on Flickr
I give you the 50p camera project on Flickr
Phil V
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 26,303
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
All I'll add to 'there y go' is 'the old Wisbech town ground is at the end of my father in laws street'
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
There's more power in these three shots than I've seen on Flickr in a month's worth of the usual shiny things on there.
- Messages
- 9,836
- Edit My Images
- No
Yep - that's photography.
What I mostly do is image capturing. Technically proficient, but just image capturing.
I've been fed up with it, and considering selling up, for a while.
I don't want to do image capturing anymore, I want to do photography. One compact and one old film camera is all I need, and you've just proved it.
Thanks.
- Messages
- 9,836
- Edit My Images
- No
There's something I want to add because I've been thinking about this for a while.
This forum, for whatever reason, is geared towards technically proficient image capturing; whether it be a bird, an insect, a landscape or yet another tedious "glamour" shot.
That's fine - it helps people develop technical skills; exposure, colour balance, composition and an eye for detail, etc.
At that level, it is a technical exercise with perhaps some room for artistic choices.
Well, it doesn't float my boat any more. I need photography as a means of artistic expression first and foremost with the technicalities very much in a supporting role.
In fact, as long as I produce a stimulating, interesting visual image, as demonstrated above by Paul, I couldn't give a stuff if it's technically correct or not.
I have, for too long, been sidetracked by the approach inculcated by the general awareness of what photography is, or supposed to be, and mean to do something about it.
I very much doubt the results will be well received here.
Now, this is important, these are my views, and my views alone. Photography is whatever you want it to be, so everyone should do their own thing.
What really, and I mean really, p***es me off, is people dismissing it as a medium for artistic impression, usually by people who have not the first idea about art. And what do we do about things we don't want to understand? We deride it, its practitioners and its supporters and educators, as nonsense.
If it's not for you, fair enough, do what you want, but don't try to tell me that your technically perfect landscape, or bird, or insect (my preferred technical exercise) is good photography.
It isn't. It is what it is.
This forum, for whatever reason, is geared towards technically proficient image capturing; whether it be a bird, an insect, a landscape or yet another tedious "glamour" shot.
That's fine - it helps people develop technical skills; exposure, colour balance, composition and an eye for detail, etc.
At that level, it is a technical exercise with perhaps some room for artistic choices.
Well, it doesn't float my boat any more. I need photography as a means of artistic expression first and foremost with the technicalities very much in a supporting role.
In fact, as long as I produce a stimulating, interesting visual image, as demonstrated above by Paul, I couldn't give a stuff if it's technically correct or not.
I have, for too long, been sidetracked by the approach inculcated by the general awareness of what photography is, or supposed to be, and mean to do something about it.
I very much doubt the results will be well received here.
Now, this is important, these are my views, and my views alone. Photography is whatever you want it to be, so everyone should do their own thing.
What really, and I mean really, p***es me off, is people dismissing it as a medium for artistic impression, usually by people who have not the first idea about art. And what do we do about things we don't want to understand? We deride it, its practitioners and its supporters and educators, as nonsense.
If it's not for you, fair enough, do what you want, but don't try to tell me that your technically perfect landscape, or bird, or insect (my preferred technical exercise) is good photography.
It isn't. It is what it is.
OP
PhotographyBuff
Guest
I did not say distinguishing them was either possible or impossible. So I left it up to the responders to decide the importance - or lack thereof - of equipment.
If I were to rephrase my question, it would be:
Is it possible to speak of skill and creativity/art in photography independent of what camera one is using, or would "skill" and "creativity/art" be always limited by the equipment one is using?
A third way to phrase it:
Does one's camera limit one's potential in photography? If so, does it do so in any significant way?
From the extensive debate about the subject, I can see that there are two extreme positions on the subject.
One of my favourite photographs (a slight caveat: I've only been exploring photographic art, and art in general, for a relatively short time) is this photo by Daido Moriyama. Nobody could credibly claim that it's a technically good shot (or maybe they could, I'm eager to be challenged) but it's very powerful to me. It's explicitly and obviously sexual, but anonymised and distant. It makes us think about sex and sexuality in a challenging way; the subject has been stripped of her individuality and humanity and is presented as an almost impressionistic sex object. Yet it achieves that without feeling directly exploitative or seedy, specifically because the subject is so anonymised by the style. It's obviously intimate but says something about our guarded and distant relationship with intimacy and sex. If it was technically perfect it would just be porn, but the heavy grain, the lack of focus, adds a thematic layer that takes it outside of that box. If I get really wooly about it, it also sometimes make me think of the relationship between a pornographic photographer and their subject: is this the subject in the mind of the glamour photographer? Just a collection of vaguely defined parts?
Jayst84
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 5,092
- Name
- James
- Edit My Images
- No
How is it not technically good? I'm sure it looks pretty much exactly as the photographer intended it to look.
I guess you're right. I suppose I was thinking that there's not a great deal of technical knowledge required for creating an aesthetic like that. But, yes, it's as technically good as was probably intended, and that is arguably all that matters.
Yep - that's photography.
What I mostly do is image capturing. Technically proficient, but just image capturing.
I've been fed up with it, and considering selling up, for a while.
I don't want to do image capturing anymore, I want to do photography. One compact and one old film camera is all I need, and you've just proved it.
Thanks.
But only you can take the photos you want to no matter what camera you have,or want to have
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
One of my favourite photographs (a slight caveat: I've only been exploring photographic art, and art in general, for a relatively short time) is this photo by Daido Moriyama. Nobody could credibly claim that it's a technically good shot (or maybe they could, I'm eager to be challenged) but it's very powerful to me. It's explicitly and obviously sexual, but anonymised and distant. It makes us think about sex and sexuality in a challenging way; the subject has been stripped of her individuality and humanity and is presented as an almost impressionistic sex object. Yet it achieves that without feeling directly exploitative or seedy, specifically because the subject is so anonymised by the style. It's obviously intimate but says something about our guarded and distant relationship with intimacy and sex. If it was technically perfect it would just be porn, but the heavy grain, the lack of focus, adds a thematic layer that takes it outside of that box. If I get really wooly about it, it also sometimes make me think of the relationship between a pornographic photographer and their subject: is this the subject in the mind of the glamour photographer? Just a collection of vaguely defined parts?
We're now at the jumping off point... the crossroads where it all goes to sh1t usually.
Where to take your photography once you can always get it exposed well, sharp, composed well, processed well...? what then? Once you can do all that with aplomb, what's left? How do you grow as a photographer? If all there is to the game is the technical and aesthetic, it implies that technical proficiency and pretty pictures is the end of the road: That's it. you've arrived. How long before you get bored of taking the same stuff over and over again as a technical exercise? Then the rot sets in.
No one is suggesting you have to start making "art" (in inverted commas) however. BUT.... this stiff, well fortified resistance to photography as art is the problem. Why is art regarded as something inaccessible or somehow only for a certain type of person? Why do certain people exclude themselves from it willingly? They remind me of schoolkids who pretend to like the bands the cool kid like because being accepted and liked is more important than the music itself.
You may HATE that image above... but so what? You may love it... so what? It's not about that. No.. you'd not have that on your wall... so what's it for? ghoti explains it very well - there's no need for me to give a reading of this "text" for it would say something very similar. However... if it was technically perfect, it would be porn... he hit the nail on the head there, and for THAT reason it IS technically perfect. This image asks questions about how men regard women. This image just makes your desire and lust questionable because you can't hide behind anything. You see her, you want her, and then you have to deal with that. Yet you saw her and wanted her without even seeing her: She's just a shape, an idea... it reduces women to an idea.. and you're aroused by an idea... think about that and how it fits in with what you thought you thought about women: What does that say about you? That's what art does.. it questions and challenges.
No one's saying all art has to be black and white and be blurred though. This is why I always use Burtynsky in thee debates.
Technically this is beyond reproach. If you don't believe me, go and see the work in an exhibition for real. It's staggeringly beautiful, and the craft, and care and technical excellence is something Joe Cornish could only dream of producing. However, the difference is it's not being made for the sake of it like a Cornish image. This is how you take your landscapes and move on beyond the technical creative barrier. You just.... think!
Here's what Burtynsky says about this project:
"The car that I drove cross-country began to represent not only freedom, but also something much more conflicted. I began to think about oil itself: as both the source of energy that makes everything possible, and as a source of dread, for its ongoing endangerment of our habitat."
As simple as that. That's all it took, and he's off. It ended up as the book "oil". Now he's able to create work that everyone would find interesting because when they pick the book up they aren't just looking at them because they're shiny things any more, they're looking at them to see what he's on about, and it quickly becomes apparent how utterly dependent we are on this black stuff, and all this beauty, and craft, and skill has been used in such a way that it hits home so much more forcefully than a news article or Paxman interviewing some industrialist or politician. You FEEL it because beauty and art has been used to critically examine something so ugly. So no... art is NOT something for academics to stroke their beards over, it's for everyone.
All art is, is the result of critical thinking. Maybe that's the problem. Maybe not enough people think critically.. or even want to. That's fine, but ask yourselves this. Once you can reliably produce any image you want on a purely technical level.. what then? What's left to learn? You happy with the fact that it's the end of the road? Trust me... you do arrive at the end of that road where there's not really anything technical left to learn, and you simply are not challenged by the craft skills alone any more. Would you enjoy photography as much if there was no challenge left in it? If not, and you reject the idea of photography as art, then all you've done is condemn your own hobby to a limited shelf life which expires when the technical fails to challenge you any more. Then you'll move on to something else. Seems an awful waste of time to me when you could put all that technical talent to use just by thinking.
BillN_33
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 13,952
- Name
- Bill
- Edit My Images
- No
@Pookeyhead
/above
there are other things in life
I feel more strongly about what is happening in Malta
/above
there are other things in life
I feel more strongly about what is happening in Malta
Last edited:
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Like I said.... fine. This isn't for you then. That's the point at which you leave the debate then surely?
I find it odd however, that someone who says "There are other things in life" spends so much time, and money on it. Seems to me it's a rather large part of your life. To dismiss it with "there are other things in life" suggests that you are wasting a large part of your life on something you don't feel is important. If you are just a casual snapper... then why get so upset in a debate like this? Clearly it's very important to you.
Last edited:
Blank_Canvas
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,400
- Edit My Images
- No
I would suggest that photography is a combination of both art and science. Artistic merit, creativity combined with the application of technical knowledge and equipment.
Professional photographers and photography aside. Photography will strike people in many ways and capture their interests. Loosely this falls into three groups.
1. Some people will be more interested in the collecting cameras and the technical aspects rather than using them.
2.For others it is an extension to their hobby. A means to record aircraft, trains, birds and animals etc.
3. The creative types that wish to express emotion through their images, to suggest or offer a viewpoint and provoke thought.
There is also an overlap between these groups in some cases and D&P or PP is a natural extension of this.
Professional photographers and photography aside. Photography will strike people in many ways and capture their interests. Loosely this falls into three groups.
1. Some people will be more interested in the collecting cameras and the technical aspects rather than using them.
2.For others it is an extension to their hobby. A means to record aircraft, trains, birds and animals etc.
3. The creative types that wish to express emotion through their images, to suggest or offer a viewpoint and provoke thought.
There is also an overlap between these groups in some cases and D&P or PP is a natural extension of this.
BillN_33
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 13,952
- Name
- Bill
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm not upset at all, and if you look back at ALL my postings, in this thread, you will see that I have posted arguments from BOTH sides ……. that's the difference, I can see both sides ……….. but on here things get skewed as people do not read what has been said …….. as I pointed out I am interested in bird watching and nature, more so, nature and what is happening to nature in this world of ours ……… maybe I'm strange but I can prefer nature to people……….. agreed I have spent quite a lot of £ on Nikon gear, but thats my choice and 90% of it is bought used and always has been …….. ……. but not a lot of £'s for me and not a great deal as i am retired and can do stuff like that …….. I am more interested in travel and seeing places and we spend lots of our savings on that. ….. I'm looking to spend another £3k or £4k on my hobby, (bird watching and travel), this year if I can find the right trip.
We live in France so there is a lot of "nature" around us and we spend time in S Africa in the winter and I am very interested in that country.
Each to his own, my main point has always been, in this thread, that "gear" is important to lots of people and it allows them and me to take images that we could not ……. maybe there will never be art, but that is not my intention ……. but it does not mean that I enjoy photography any less, (but that is subjective), and I get pleasure out of the images that I take ….. simple as that …. nothing complicated or deep …. I do THINK as you put it, but about many other things besides photography.
I am not a casual snapper at all, far from it ………. I take lots of images each week, do you ever look at images in the "Nature" section or the Transport Section? … or do they not interest you?
I just prefer to look at images like the following
http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/502964
NOT my image by the way …….. but maybe I wish I had seen the bird and been in a position to take an image
as I said each to his own
Last edited:
droj
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 5,069
- Name
- droj
- Edit My Images
- No
pjm1
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 4,155
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Fantastic post @Pookeyhead ... I think you've captured a lot of what many of us aspire to and also what inspires us to create.
Unfortunately, I'm still at the stage of needing to focus on getting my photography better - as it is, too many of my shots aren't technically good shots and I'm very much still spending a lot of my mental energy and effort on the technical process of capturing the image. Which leaves precious little for the more interesting side of it.
Despite getting better at the technical side over the months, I still look back on occasional earlier photos and think they're better, perhaps despite being weak "technically". My favourite photo (below) that I've taken to date was from April, when I'd only been taking photos for about 3 months. It's of my son on a climbing frame / wooden castle and I'm one side of a metal fence and he's looking through. I saw him having fun (despite the expression at the time of the photo) and thought, "I'd love to be you right now" yet when I saw his expression looking back at me, I made me wonder if he was thinking precisely the same thing, in reverse. Technically, the photo isn't great and I'm certain the image means a lot more to me than it ever would to anyone else, because of the subject. But at the very least, it has inspired me to continue taking photos, to try to improve my technical photography skills, whilst not losing myself in that at the expense of why I really want to capture images. For me, in photos such as this, the image is simply the mechanism to express what we're really capturing - a split-second in time, a series of exchanges and a re-imagining of what is happening at the moment (as well as before and after). The photo is really just the medium. I would like to be at a level of skill where the medium is ultimately transparent and allows the underlying meaning and expression to come through without distraction.
I want to be there... by pjm1 (Paul), on Flickr
I wouldn't call it art, I'd call it why I enjoy what I do - and what I enjoy seeing in others' photos.
Unfortunately, I'm still at the stage of needing to focus on getting my photography better - as it is, too many of my shots aren't technically good shots and I'm very much still spending a lot of my mental energy and effort on the technical process of capturing the image. Which leaves precious little for the more interesting side of it.
Despite getting better at the technical side over the months, I still look back on occasional earlier photos and think they're better, perhaps despite being weak "technically". My favourite photo (below) that I've taken to date was from April, when I'd only been taking photos for about 3 months. It's of my son on a climbing frame / wooden castle and I'm one side of a metal fence and he's looking through. I saw him having fun (despite the expression at the time of the photo) and thought, "I'd love to be you right now" yet when I saw his expression looking back at me, I made me wonder if he was thinking precisely the same thing, in reverse. Technically, the photo isn't great and I'm certain the image means a lot more to me than it ever would to anyone else, because of the subject. But at the very least, it has inspired me to continue taking photos, to try to improve my technical photography skills, whilst not losing myself in that at the expense of why I really want to capture images. For me, in photos such as this, the image is simply the mechanism to express what we're really capturing - a split-second in time, a series of exchanges and a re-imagining of what is happening at the moment (as well as before and after). The photo is really just the medium. I would like to be at a level of skill where the medium is ultimately transparent and allows the underlying meaning and expression to come through without distraction.
I want to be there... by pjm1 (Paul), on Flickr
I wouldn't call it art, I'd call it why I enjoy what I do - and what I enjoy seeing in others' photos.
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
As can anyone. Like I said.... fine... none of this is for you. Carry on... as you were an' all that.
That's not sarcasm either. Photography is what you make of it. I think you're going to have to, at some point, accept that gear though, is not that important in the big picture. I understand and appreciate that it is important for what you do, but it's a narrow niche, as is sports and press. Most other aspects: Portrait, landscape, documentary, fashion, still life.... you can pretty much use anything you want, and no one would care, or even know if you make great images with it... which you can as has been demonstrated well and often in this thread.
Sorry but....
I can imagine though... it's a bird shot with a long lens?
I'm not being disparaging in the slightest, but I think what you're actually interested in is birds, not photography. You just use photography as a means of collecting, and cataloguing bird, surely. You enjoy doing that, I appreciate, and understand... but it seems to me your interest in the medium is very narrow. Is that a fair comment? If it is, then you're always going to have a fairly unique view in a thread like this. If it's not, I apologise.
Phil V
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 26,303
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
As the debate reaches this point (again) I think it's too easy to draw a line between artists and craftsmen.
Most of us can't aspire to great art, but that doesn't mean our endeavours to this point are wasted.
For someone like Bill, recording nature as accurately as he can is a constant challenge that he brings the craft to and there's merit there, no massive artistic merit, but that doesn't make it a waste of effort, he gets pleasure from it and so do the people who see his images.
Likewise there are many if us from the humble event photographer up to Joe Cornish, who are producing work for commercial gain. Most of whom don't get close to genuinely thought provoking or original work. But we have commercial as well as artistic aims, and staying profitable is far more important than pleasing art critics. We have honed the craft, we challenge ourselves enough to stay interested, if we fail to do that, we fail as photographers and then as a business.
Fine Art photography may be the pinnacle (though I'm not sure it is) but it isn't the only worthy game in town.
Most of us can't aspire to great art, but that doesn't mean our endeavours to this point are wasted.
For someone like Bill, recording nature as accurately as he can is a constant challenge that he brings the craft to and there's merit there, no massive artistic merit, but that doesn't make it a waste of effort, he gets pleasure from it and so do the people who see his images.
Likewise there are many if us from the humble event photographer up to Joe Cornish, who are producing work for commercial gain. Most of whom don't get close to genuinely thought provoking or original work. But we have commercial as well as artistic aims, and staying profitable is far more important than pleasing art critics. We have honed the craft, we challenge ourselves enough to stay interested, if we fail to do that, we fail as photographers and then as a business.
Fine Art photography may be the pinnacle (though I'm not sure it is) but it isn't the only worthy game in town.
BillN_33
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 13,952
- Name
- Bill
- Edit My Images
- No
As can anyone. Like I said.... fine... none of this is for you. Carry on... as you were an' all that.
I think you're going to have to, at some point, accept that gear though, is not that important in the big picture. I understand and appreciate that it is important for what you do, but it's a narrow niche, as is sports and press. Most other aspects: Portrait, landscape, documentary, fashion, still life.... you can pretty much use anything you want, and no one would care, or even know if you make great images with it... which you can as has been demonstrated well and often in this thread.
Sorry but....
I can imagine though... it's a bird shot with a long lens?
I'm not being disparaging in the slightest, but I think what you're actually interested in is birds, not photography. You just use photography as a means of collecting, and cataloguing bird, surely. You enjoy doing that, I appreciate, and understand... but it seems to me your interest in the medium is very narrow. Is that a fair comment? If it is, then you're always going to have a fairly unique view in a thread like this. If it's not, I apologise.
That's what i have said …….. look back at my posts …… my wife always complaints that I never really take images of anything else, even when on holiday ……..to me photography is a "technical end" of bird watching as it reading about them etc., and following what is happening ……. I said this earlier…… and for that I need a good bodies, a Nikon 300 f4, a Nikon 300 f2.8 etc., etc., a few TC's, really good tripods and heads and god knows what else…….. and I have just bought a used Niko 600mm f4 … I have loads of gear……. and will continue to be interested in the technical improvements that constantly come along
I have for some time had a Leica as one of my "snapper" cameras along with a Canon S95 type, digital and film …… and M43 stuff and adapters, I still have a couple of Nikon F's and quite a lot of MF glass from the 1970's ……. I'm not bragging or anything ……. I appreciate good design and am happy and fortunate enough to be able to afford it ……. my main hobby over the years has been BMW bikes, riding them but also semi restoring them etc., and appreciating their design and build…… I regard a BMW R90S as "work of art" ……. maybe I prefer an oil refinery or an engineering works to an Art gallery…… in fact I do
This can be a strange forum, some people never read what has been said and are selective about what they choose to see ……. I suppose I should get back to the "Wild and Free" section for some sanity and even the Bird section now gives me solace, which is saying something
Last edited:
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
I think whether it's great or not is neither here, nor there... that's just a comparative qualifier that can be debated. What is great? However, to say that most of us can't aspire to art? I disagree. You just have to adjust what you you consider to be art. To me, if an image was taken with a purpose, to show me something, make me think something, feel something, educate me, shock me, horrify me, or inspire me... then it's art.
Like I said.... all you have to do is think. What do I want to show, and why? Artists often ask themselves "So what?" when they produce work. Why am I doing this? What's it's purpose? If you can answer that with a reason that goes beyond "a technical exercise", or "It just looks cool" then you're already creating art.
droj
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 5,069
- Name
- droj
- Edit My Images
- No
Astutely put. It's of value to be able to analyse the nature of things, instead of just running blind, and there's a place for the merely documentary, etc. The term art can have a range of meanings, too, from the seriously engaging to the merely decorative, indeed at one time it was used as a synonym for craft but that's now a legacy usage and not the modern one.
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Look back at mine... I'm not really arguing with you to any great extent either
However.... if all this is true... why would you be upset if another photographer spoke disparagingly about your kind of images? If all it is is a technical extension of your ornithology, why does it get you upset? Surely so long as they are exemplary catalogue images of birds, job done, right? Why the competitive nature you display? Why did you launch into crit mode when you thought it was ME who took the butterfly image? Ask yourself that?
Phil V
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 26,303
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
I understand all that; however for most photographers, the craft is an end in itself. I don't think I do create 'art' I record images that swing between a pleasant recording of what's in front of the camera to capturing the emotions or conveying the atmosphere I'm witnessing. But I wouldn't call it 'art', any more than the beautiful stained glass pieces my mate produces is art, we're using skills to convey something, but that something isn't in any way 'original' 'unique' or 'challenging', they're just pictures. And it's good enough for us and it gives pleasure to others.
BillN_33
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 13,952
- Name
- Bill
- Edit My Images
- No
Look back at mine... I'm not really arguing with you to any great extent either
However.... if all this is true... why would you be upset if another photographer spoke disparagingly about your kind of images? If all it is is a technical extension of your ornithology, why does it get you upset? Surely so long as they are exemplary catalogue images of birds, job done, right? Why the competitive nature you display? Why did you launch into crit mode when you thought it was ME who took the butterfly image? Ask yourself that?
I have never been upset about anyone criticising my images ……. in fact I appreciate negative comments and positive advice ……. which i have had in the bird section ……. it is the way that that advice is given that is important
All I said, sarcastically, about that (butterfly) image is that a camera phone is useless for the butterfly images that I want, but I don't really do butterflies … frogs next year maybe!
But again, you have taken one example and not read any of my other posts ….. I am not particularly bothered if it was you or anyone else ………. it was a comment about the appropriate equipment needed for the shot that I want …….. after all the OP did mention equipment in his posting
Last edited:
Phil V
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 26,303
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
I love this picture, and I'd probably call it art....
I want to be there... by pjm1 (Paul), on Flickr
I wouldn't call it art, I'd call it why I enjoy what I do - and what I enjoy seeing in others' photos.
pjm1
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 4,155
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
To be fair, Phil, that's not much different from an artist working on a commissioned piece. Just because somebody has asked for it, doesn't make it less worthy. Sure, indulgent art is perhaps something where the artist is doing it for themselves and not necessarily for commercial gain... but does that mean his or her paid pieces (or commercially successful ones) are less artistic?
I realise that a lot of praised artists were not commercially successful during their lives, but perhaps that's just the art world trying so very hard to be inaccessible?
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Are you doing this in such a way that the emotions are conveyed to me as well? If so, is that not what Anders Petersen, or Diane Arbus, or many other photographers who "record" do? Maybe you're too self-deprecating? Maybe too many people feel art is a grand, serious, and intimidating thing that is seen as a barrier, or wall that separates them from "artists" when in reality, it's just nothing more than a slightly too aggressive speed bump in the road.
As would I.
Last edited:
BillN_33
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 13,952
- Name
- Bill
- Edit My Images
- No
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
I've read everything you have written. Why?
BillN_33
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 13,952
- Name
- Bill
- Edit My Images
- No
"I suppose the following is an example of how equipment is NOT important"
is what I said
Breakfast, then service the "ride on" far more productive!
Last edited:
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Bill.. I know you've been fence sitting. I've read everything you've written. However, I'm suggesting that because some people need gear to even produce what they produce isn't in itself an argument that convincingly qualifies gear as important in order to create great images. I'll accept that long lenses are needed for what you do, but you could take great bird images with a long lens on a D70. So long as the gear is appropriate, it doesn't have to be high end. If you're saying that bird photography NEEDS a D4, then I suggest to you that's it's the camera taking the image, not you.
Surely the skill is really the field craft?
Phil V
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 26,303
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
Maybe I am self deprecating. I love art, as a kid I had artistic aspirations beyond my ability, so when I took up photography I could finally create images that represented what I envisioned. But I don't 'feel' that what I produce is art, even the best of it when capturing atmosphere or emotion, I feel I'm just regurgitating what has gone before, there's not enough of 'me' in it for me to be comfortable to call it 'my art'.
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
To be honest Phil.. I can't recall seeing anything you've done, but anything produced to capture emotion can be art so long as that's transferable to a wider audience and makes them feel.
Sometimes personal imagery translates to a wider audience, sometimes it doesn't. Personally, I've stopped looking in the People and Portraits section because I'm sick of seeing images of other people's kids smiling at the camera. It means nothing to me. however, a shot that captured something about childhood that resonated with me.... that would be a different proposition. Why else do you think Sally Mann's images of her kids are so controversial and famous? They show aspects of childhood that are not "cute" or merely smiling kids.
Technically, the only challenging aspects of Mann's work is that she's chosen large format and wet plate to work with. The images would have had the same power if she's used 35mm though (some of them were small format). Sometimes it's merely what the image is showing that makes it special, or original, or rewarding. However, the problems arise when people just dismiss it because "why would I not want to only capture the happy things" Why? Because life's not like that. Just as a book, or a film that only ever dealt with shiny and happy and ended happily ever after would be complete sh1t... perhaps the same rules apply to all creative media?
On that note... I'm sure you have taken a great many images that would be massively interesting to a wider audience. Sometimes the problem is seeing (or not seeing) the value in what you have taken. That arises when you don't think critically.