Distinguishing the great skill and creativity from the quality of the equipment of a photographer

[pjm1]

Here is a question, then... is an obviously technically accomplished photograph actually a more difficult medium on which to portray art? The OOF photo of a nude above is a useful case in point: it is deliberately "wrong" technically, because that makes it "right", artistically. As someone with no formal artistic education, I see it and immediate assume it must have a message to convey, because otherwise such a "technically incorrect" photo wouldn't have a place. So it has a headstart, if you will, because we're immediately "looking for the art" and its purpose.

Conversely, if a photograph has wonderful lighting, is precisely focused with perfect choice of DOF and composed elegantly and comfortably... is there enough "room" for it to carry as much artistic message? Or is the viewer too distracted by its photographic (technical) perfection? A beautiful landscape, captured in fabulous light to convey a sense of the scene and that moment would definitely have "wow" factor and make many of us want to be there. But there is little doubt it conveys its message explicitly and whilst it may have just as much hidden meaning as something more obtuse, could it be considered "high art" despite being an excellent representation of its genre?

I'm not suggesting "art for art's sake", but I wonder if technical perfection actually confers a disadvantage in terms of artistic bandwidth ?

 

[BillN_33]

Bill.. 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?

I have selected part of your quote, but you have been selective again

Of course the camera will not take an image on its own

I am not going back to quote what I said about a D4

even with the best fieldcraft or the same guy the same fieldcraft

but I am sure I said that a D4 would allow you to take more images of BIF's and maybe "better" images as even if your "spray and pray", (maybe I said that in another post), you would still get lots of shots to select from …….. a lot of BIF shots are luck, but you need (technical) skill…….. you would need a lens on the end of it of course.

The D4 with a 200 400mm VR would "beat" a D70, (although it is a good camera with a great sensor) with the same lens most of the time, you may get a "better" shot with the D70 but most of the time the D4 will give you the "ability" to be more successful and "better" ……. in the hands of the same guy.
(I am not sure of the spec of the D70 - maybe it won't take the newer Nikon lens, so lets say a D90)

Must clean my teeth and service the mower before it gets too hot

 

[BillN_33]

we are not going to discuss - "Sharpness is a Bourgeois Concept" are we - if so, "I'm out" as the guys on Dragons Den say

HCB only said that because he was before AF and his eyes were bad!

There's a good Nikon 105mm f2.8VR micro in the For Sale Section if this helps - it's a sharpe lens even for portraits!

sorry about the "…." but I passed "O" level english in 1963

 

[Phil V]

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.
...
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.

The art critic inside me (untrained - unloved) says 'hackneyed' and 'derivative', but again, that doesn't mean I believe they have no value, just that I'm not pushing any boundaries. They serve the purpose of pleasing their target market, many of my customers see me as 'creative', but that's because they haven't seen truly creative imagery, they're comparing me to awful snappers. My peers probably see me as very ordinary, but that's OK for me.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Here is a question, then... is an obviously technically accomplished photograph actually a more difficult medium on which to portray art?

No. Simple as that. That's why I often use Burtynsky in these debates... as I've already said.

This just perpetuates the myth that art has to be somehow grungy, black and white, and out of focus. This is bullsh1t. It doesn't. If it's appropriate, then use that... if it's not and you still do, thinking that's what art is all about, then you've just reduced your work to a technical exercise.

The OOF photo of a nude above is a useful case in point: it is deliberately "wrong" technically, because that makes it "right", artistically. As someone with no formal artistic education, I see it and immediate assume it must have a message to convey, because otherwise such a "technically incorrect" photo wouldn't have a place. So it has a headstart, if you will, because we're immediately "looking for the art" and its purpose.

It's only right in this context because it's appropriate (see my comments in post #177). However... if Burtynsky shot his landscapes in a similar fashion they'd be useless. His work is masterful, large format, great lenses... ultra sharp, beautifully exposed... but still art. His images are so technically demanding that any of the small toy format cameras used by most in here would not be up to the job.

Conversely, if a photograph has wonderful lighting, is precisely focused with perfect choice of DOF and composed elegantly and comfortably... is there enough "room" for it to carry as much artistic message?

Of course... see above.

Or is the viewer too distracted by its photographic (technical) perfection?

No... it's that very dissonance between teh beauty of the image and the gravity of the subject matter that makes a burtinsky image so powerful.

we are not going to discuss - "Sharpness is a Bourgeois Concept" are we - if so, "I'm out" as the guys on Dragons Den say

No.. we're not... and ARE not.

 

[Pookeyhead]

The art critic inside me (untrained - unloved) says 'hackneyed' and 'derivative', but again, that doesn't mean I believe they have no value, just that I'm not pushing any boundaries. They serve the purpose of pleasing their target market, many of my customers see me as 'creative', but that's because they haven't seen truly creative imagery, they're comparing me to awful snappers. My peers probably see me as very ordinary, but that's OK for me.

Ahh.. work for clients.... who are your clients? What images are we talking about here? Most social portraiture is just smiling kids.... no one expects or wants challenging with that. I'm on about what YOU do, for YOU... not commercial work.

 

[pjm1]

I guess there is also a risk that as art moves up in terms of its impact, it alienates some as much as it pleases others. For you, Phil, that would be a risk in your business of wedding photography... I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you simply can't afford to have customers being aghast at your output. Even if you were only to include a few shots which genuinely push the boundaries, I suspect customers who didn't get it or appreciate it would still remember and recall "that really weird shot he showed us that we deleted straight away"...

 

[Phil V]

Ahh.. work for clients.... who are your clients? What images are we talking about here? Most social portraiture is just smiling kids.... no one expects or wants challenging with that. I'm on about what YOU do, for YOU... not commercial work.

I'm ashamed to say that most of what I do for 'me' is honing my skills for my commercial self . Apart from shooting rally cars, which I would put closer to 'the other side', they're record shots, with as much 'creativity' as I can muster with the amount of control I have (the only control over location and light is within fixed parameters).

 

[Pookeyhead]

I guess there is also a risk that as art moves up in terms of its impact, it alienates some as much as it pleases others. For you, Phil, that would be a risk in your business of wedding photography... I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you simply can't afford to have customers being aghast at your output. Even if you were only to include a few shots which genuinely push the boundaries, I suspect customers who didn't get it or appreciate it would still remember and recall "that really weird shot he showed us that we deleted straight away"...

Seriously though.... no one's suggesting wedding photography is art, surely? It's a commercial job, and it's purpose is to produce aesthetically pleasing images that record the event for posterity. The client does not want art. The client wants "wow" and pleasing images of their multi-thousand Pound party and to look back on a happy event with fondness. It will have no relevance to anyone else outside of that day/time/family, other than to criticise it technically.

 

[Phil V]

I guess there is also a risk that as art moves up in terms of its impact, it alienates some as much as it pleases others. For you, Phil, that would be a risk in your business of wedding photography... I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you simply can't afford to have customers being aghast at your output. Even if you were only to include a few shots which genuinely push the boundaries, I suspect customers who didn't get it or appreciate it would still remember and recall "that really weird shot he showed us that we deleted straight away"...

That, and there really isn't time to 'set up' shots that would truly challenge (even if I had the desire to)

 

[pjm1]

I'm ashamed to say that most of what I do for 'me' is honing my skills for my commercial self . Apart from shooting rally cars, which I would put closer to 'the other side', they're record shots, with as much 'creativity' as I can muster with the amount of control I have (the only control over location and light is within fixed parameters).

There's absolutely no shame in that Phil, because I struggle to think of many people who would choose to do their job outside of their working life! It's both a blessing and curse to have a career and a livelihood that is also something you love... there is a danger it becomes all consuming.

 

[Pookeyhead]

There's absolutely no shame in that Phil, because I struggle to think of many people who would choose to do their job outside of their working life! It's both a blessing and curse to have a career and a livelihood that is also something you love... there is a danger it becomes all consuming.

Agreed. Phil... the worth of your work is for you to decide. While we're debating what is, or is not art, no one HAS to produce art if they don't want to.

What causes the arguments is when people get defensive because you suggest what they do for a living is not art, They call you names and slag off "art" as a load of nonsense, yet get upset when you say what they do is not art. They want their cake and be able to eat it as well. Why are they not pleased you don't think their work is art if they think "art" is such a bunch of crap?

This doesn't apply to you. You're just wondering what your work is all about with an open mind.. we all do that.

 

[XA2inmypocket]

I'm not very good at debating on these online threads. I'm not sure if I want to even argue, I think that everyone has made their point of view quite well. Respect to all of the species of photographer - the professional and commercial, the ornithologist, and wild-life photographer, and the creative and artists. I understand David's point of view, and his posts have been very enlightening. To be honest, what I do with cameras has so far been determined by budget, spending too much time browsing other people's photographs, and maybe a little bit by political perspective (I don't want to be told to consume upgrades by the Man). I enjoy all sorts of photography, including wild-life and those wonderful macros of small Life, but I am drawn towards images that started life on an argent film. I like imperfection. I can't put my finger on it sometimes. I like fine medium format portraits, but I also like it when someone captures the atmosphere, of the nitty gritty in their neighbourhood and in their life. Makes you feel it. Fine sharp clear detailed perfection doesn't always do it.

I look at all of these wonderful photographs, and although I get enjoyment out of looking at them, they are more often than not, technically imperfect, as have been many of the great or at least acclaimed photographs through the past 150 odd years. I can't put my finger on what makes them so good, they just are. I've not had any training in the arts.

I can understand what David is saying. I've recently come to the conclusion, that the photography media are shepherding their followers down one narrow road. So many uninspiring but technically perfect images across the Flickr-sphere. All looking so very much the same, because they follow the same set of rules. I'm not knocking digital neither. It's just another challenge. A certain gentleman with a strong internet presence (if I say Ken, I've probably lost credit) suggested that the best photographer can make great images on any gear at hand. They don't drone on about gear, they just use it - even with an expired disposable film camera.

I'll bore you with one more image after damaging your eyes with my 50p camera project.

I quite like this recent photograph. I made it in a box camera. Eve though the cheap Foma film scratched on the rollers, I think it is really nice, I'm happy with it. Imperfection is fine. Rules are to be broken.

 

[SimonF01]

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

Sorry to go back, but I have to comment on how good this set of pictures are.

 

[BillN_33]

Art - Discuss

Are they not my image - although it was taken at ISO 1600, hand held at 1/60 sec - so I did well

 

[Pookeyhead]

What settings you used are of no importance to the reading of the image Did you want to discuss whether it's art, or be congratulated on your technical skill?

I have a definite reading is this image, which I will share with you on one condition (as I don't want to prejudice your own reading): What do YOU think of this image?

I'm not trying to trick you or embarrass you, or anything nefarious... I'm genuinely curious as to how you read it.

 

[BillN_33]

What settings you used are of no importance to the reading of the image Did you want to discuss whether it's art, or be congratulated on your technical skill?

I have a definite reading is this image, which I will share with you on one condition (as I don't want to prejudice your own reading): What do YOU think of this image?

I don't want you to discuss my technical skill - again you are being selective, the technical info just shows one of the ways I look at an image that I have taken …….. after the event ……. and sometimes at the time ……..which may be different to others

It could remind me of a famous guitar solo, or there are several religious connotations …… it's not an easy stairway to climb ….. or maybe even reach for many ''''''''''' but I'm not deep into this stuff - I've titled it to give you my "first" impression when I saw it … and the music I associated it with

Interested to here your views, if you care to share them

Christian Lacroix Exhibition in Provence last year - he was born in Arles

Here is another that I quite like for different reasons

neither are "my art" but an image of the art of others who know what they are doing

 

[pjm1]

pjm1: Here is a question, then... is an obviously technically accomplished photograph actually a more difficult medium on which to portray art?

No. Simple as that. That's why I often use Burtynsky in these debates... as I've already said.

This just perpetuates the myth that art has to be somehow grungy, black and white, and out of focus. This is bullsh1t. It doesn't. If it's appropriate, then use that... if it's not and you still do, thinking that's what art is all about, then you've just reduced your work to a technical exercise.

pjm1: The OOF photo of a nude above is a useful case in point: it is deliberately "wrong" technically, because that makes it "right", artistically. As someone with no formal artistic education, I see it and immediate assume it must have a message to convey, because otherwise such a "technically incorrect" photo wouldn't have a place. So it has a headstart, if you will, because we're immediately "looking for the art" and its purpose.

It's only right in this context because it's appropriate (see my comments in post #177). However... if Burtynsky shot his landscapes in a similar fashion they'd be useless. His work is masterful, large format, great lenses... ultra sharp, beautifully exposed... but still art. His images are so technically demanding that any of the small toy format cameras used by most in here would not be up to the job.

pjm1: Conversely, if a photograph has wonderful lighting, is precisely focused with perfect choice of DOF and composed elegantly and comfortably... is there enough "room" for it to carry as much artistic message?

Of course... see above.

pjm1: Or is the viewer too distracted by its photographic (technical) perfection?

No... it's that very dissonance between teh beauty of the image and the gravity of the subject matter that makes a burtinsky image so powerful.

That's a pretty definitive and black and white response. I'm not saying it's incorrect, I'm just surprised at the certainty in which you appear to define or view art.

I think you've missed some of the nuance in my questions, for which I'll happily hold my hand up and call as my fault for phrasing them poorly.

My question was not whether technically accomplished photographs can or cannot portray art, but simply whether they will be at a disadvantage. To elaborate further: I was really just wondering whether artists who use precise and accurate styles - whether that be photography, painting or sculpture (or anything else) - have a "tougher time of it" than those who use styles which are more impressionist and by necessity, leave more to the imagination of the viewer. Is the OOF nude an example of "immediate art" which is either more prevalent or more accessible because the average viewer is primed to expect it to be artistic because of its style? Is Burtynsky an example of "work-for-it art" where the viewer has to put in a bit more effort (a) to understand the subtext and story; and (b) fundamentally to switch one's mind to "art view" first, because it is also a technically excellent photo?

I'm not placing any value judgements on whether one or t'other is more worthy of being called art... I'm simply enquiring whether one form lends itself more easily to being classified as art rather than simply an image or a capture? And, perhaps as either a cause or an effect, is ultimately more prevalent in "art"?

Art is obviously in the eye of the beholder... I have no place to tell another whether what (s)he likes is right or wrong or whether their view of art is correct. All I can speak for is my own feelings and, perhaps, put those in the context of wider public or critical views of the same "art". I'm curious how others see it.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I don't want you to discuss my technical skill - again you are being selective, the technical info, just shows one of the ways I look at an image which may be different to others

It could remind me of a famous guitar solo, or there are several religious connotations …… it's not an easy stairway to climb ….. or maybe even reach for many ''''''''''' but I'm not deep into this stuff

Interested to here your views, if you care to share them

Christian Lacroix Exhibition in Provence last year - he was born in Arles

I think it's certainly an interesting image (the first one you posted). The interest for me is many fold: First, it's a photograph of someone else's artwork, which made me curious as to why you took it, and my interest in hearing your views. Secondly, the interest is not the artwork depicted, but the people in it, and why people go to galleries. It raises issues such as why do people queue for hours to look at the Mona Lisa, only to, when they finally get their hard won spot at the front of the queue, take a photograph of it instead of admiring it?

Is it art? I'm not sure it is, as it doesn't really address anything like this in any serious way, but it probably has interesting qualities you may not have contemplated, so it could be said to have some artistic value.

I know you don't want me to discuss your technical skill... and I have no wish to, but why did you even bother to tell me what settings you used when A) You know I'm not interested, and B) you didn't want me to discuss them? What was that for?

 

[SimonF01]

pjm1 " My question was not whether technically accomplished photographs can or cannot portray art, but simply whether they will be at a disadvantage. To elaborate further: I was really just wondering whether artists who use precise and accurate styles - whether that be photography, painting or sculpture (or anything else) - have a "tougher time of it" than those who use styles which are more impressionist and by necessity, leave more to the imagination of the viewer. Is the OOF nude an example of "immediate art" which is either more prevalent or more accessible because the average viewer is primed to expect it to be artistic because of its style? Is Burtynsky an example of "work-for-it art" where the viewer has to put in a bit more effort (a) to understand the subtext and story; and (b) fundamentally to switch one's mind to "art view" first, because it is also a technically excellent photo? "




From my experience Arty seems to be a word used by many to describe something creative they don't think they understand properly.
I would include OOF in that.

 

[Pookeyhead]

My question was not whether technically accomplished photographs can or cannot portray art, but simply whether they will be at a disadvantage.

As I said... no. You may think that's a back and white response, or that it's too "certain" fro you, but of course the answer is no. Why would it not be? Why would it be a disadvantage? It can only be a disadvantage if art is perceived to be something that deliberately avoids technical skill.... which it patently doesn't.

To elaborate further: I was really just wondering whether artists who use precise and accurate styles - whether that be photography, painting or sculpture (or anything else) - have a "tougher time of it" than those who use styles which are more impressionist and by necessity, leave more to the imagination of the viewer.

Again... no. Why else can you view Ansel Adam's work in New York's Museum of Modern Art?

Is the OOF nude an example of "immediate art" which is either more prevalent or more accessible because the average viewer is primed to expect it to be artistic because of its style?

Interesting question, but again, I'd say no. If anything however, I'd say the opposite is true because maybe MOST people's reaction is "Oh God... here we go, another blurry photo pretending to be art".

Is Burtynsky an example of "work-for-it art" where the viewer has to put in a bit more effort (a) to understand the subtext and story; and (b) fundamentally to switch one's mind to "art view" first, because it is also a technically excellent photo?

I'd suggest no, because A) the subject is very easy to understand (oil is bad), and B) you assume that everyone thinks art is not technically accomplished... which I have trouble believing. In fact, if anything, this forum demonstrates that technically proficient work is MORE likely to be regarded more favourably.

Does that make sense?

 

[BillN_33]

I know you don't want me to discuss your technical skill... and I have no wish to, but why did you even bother to tell me what settings you used when A) You know I'm not interested, and B) you didn't want me to discuss them? What was that for?

Because - I (we) often post technical settings on "Nature shots" which are of interest to some and this carries through to other shots, because they maybe helpful to others - that's the difference… happy to share info and comments.
You could also apply your logic to the title and a title v no tile in that it could influence

I was interested in their perspective on the image and what I thought that they may be saying and their perspective to the image, plus I quite like the "Stairway to Heaven" track - yes it does say many things to me including my remembrance of the "coldness" of the building that it was exhibited it together with any personal religious view…. and I quite like the fire extinguisher, for different reasons

I took it because I am a "snapper" who likes to visit and look at stuff like that and it was probably too hot outside to find any wildlife

Selective again

 

[Pookeyhead]

Because - I (we) often post technical settings on "Nature shots" which are of interest to some and this carries through to other shots, because they maybe helpful to others - that's the difference.

Are you suggesting I don;t help people in here?

I was as interested about the perspective about what they were saying and their perspective to the image, plus I quite like the "Stairway to Heaven" track - yes it does say many things to me including my remembrance of the "coldness" of the building that it was exhibited it.

Selective again

Why selective? Why are you confrontational with me? What are you accusing me of? You baffle me.

LOL I gave my reading of the image. One rule you need to understand is that whatever reason YOU had for taking it has little importance to the viewer if they can't relate to that. There's no possible way I would know you took it because you like Led Zeppelin, so I will never see that. Even if you told me, I'd be like "So what?". What a good photographer need to understand is what is the broader appeal; What will be the image's interesting qualities to the viewer? The viewer's reading may be very different from what you intended. That doesn't make them wrong. Telling the viewer helps of course, which is why work is usually accompanied by a statement, but your statement would have read "I like the track Stairway to Heaven, and I wanted to catch the coldness of the building". That would make me think.... A) That's a pretty tenuous link, and B) the room looks quite warm actually.

"What have I got here, and what will others get from it" is something all photographer should ask. Many reply with "I'll shoot what I want, and [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER] to everyone else", and that's fine... but if that's so, why bother even showing it to anyone else? Why not just take the image, and look at it yourself in private?

(shrug)

 

[Yv]

Because - I (we) often post technical settings on "Nature shots" which are of interest to some and this carries through to other shots, because they maybe helpful to others - that's the difference… happy to share info and comments

I was interested in their perspective on the image and what I thought that they may be saying and their perspective to the image, plus I quite like the "Stairway to Heaven" track - yes it does say many things to me including my remembrance of the "coldness" of the building that it was exhibited it together with any personal religious view.

Selective again

So, the photo doesn't say 'it was cold in that building' to anyone else, so does that make it a record shot, because the things it says to you are about that moment in time and aren't projected to other viewers? Or, is it art because art can say many things to many people and often totally different things?


Personally, I could probably jump into @Phil V's shoes [though his beard might look a bit odd on me] in terms of where my photography is at. I'd like to do more personal projects, I'd to be able to 'think critically' as David phrases it, and maybe one day I will have the time to do.... or perhaps that should be the guts to make time to do it.

 

[BillN_33]

Still not serviced the Mower!

@Pookeyhead
- I know you may perceive the following to be abusive - it is not, believe me - I don't like Led Zeppelin, I just like that track which is also played by others, although their interpretation may be the best
I felt my title would be interpreted by many as to do with that track

Complicated - but it is still the first thing that comes into my mind when I see the image
I only feel the coldness on a hot day?

maybe I can never be an artist in any way as i do not bother too much about what people think of me …….. - it's just an image that I have taken whilst enjoying a visit - that's all, nothing to be precious about….. being semi-French, I remember the lunch, we were late and it was poor

I have never suggested that you do not help people, I have no idea one way or another - you asked my why I posted the settings and I told you - some people stick them on the image - just different way of going about things

Confrontational, (spelling looks incorrect, but I'll go with it) - this thread has been part to do with equipment - I have clearly stated my views, sometimes both ways, that's all and I even said that I believe we have different views on the subject.

I have now tried to drag a few of my "non-nature" images out to help with whatever …. but I'm not sure!

I hate predictive text - it is a constant editing job

 

[Pookeyhead]

Still not serviced the Mower!

Go and do it then

 

[Pookeyhead]

Still not serviced the Mower!

@Pookeyhead
- I know you may perceive it to be abusive - it is not, believe me - I don't like Led Zeppelin, I just like that track which is played by others, although their interpretation may be the bet
I felt my title would be interpreted by many as to do with the track

I didn't even read your title. I was looking at the image. Sorry.

Complicated - but it is still the first thing that comes to my mind when I see the image

But is it the first thing that others see? If I'd have read your title I may have, but I may not have thought of the Zeppelin track, I may have been more inclined to view it as a metaphor however. I find borders and stuff a massive distraction to the imagery, so I tend to ignore them.

maybe I can never be an artist in any way as i do not bother too much about what people think of me …….. more than were is it and what are the settings - it's just an image - that's all, nothing to be precious about.

So again... a genuine question. Why do you post images online? What do you get out of it? You may not care what they think of YOU, but you clearly care about what they think of your work.

I have never accused you of not helping people - you asked my why I posted the settings and I told you - some people stick them on the image - just different way of going about things

It was your comment, "because they maybe helpful to others - that's the difference." What difference? Between you and I?

Maybe that's not it... not important either way.

 

[BillN_33]

I post images on line because I enjoy the forum and want to be part of it - particularly if I have seen a bird or dragonfly that may not be seen by others, plus nature is very important to me so the more we promote it the safer it may be - so we are back to square one.

Plotting the movement of Euro Dragonflies northwards is also quite interesting - when will the Violet Dropwing, (Trithemis annulate), get to the UK - if ever - Climate change?

I have also got plenty of spare time as I'm retired …. you know the saying about "idle hands"

What do I get out of it - hopefully more support and appreciation for nature and how beautiful it is - if you want "art" look at nature ……. beats anything that man can do … IMHO of course.
Certainly the situation in Malta is being highlighted by UK Bird watchers/photographers gaining more support to stop it

Why do I take them - do I have to have a reason?

Not sure what I mean't by difference ….. whether between you and me or between whatever and whatever ……. maybe my wife's nagging about servicing the mower rather than being on here is kicking in …. anyway I now smell food

 

[Blank_Canvas]

Art - Discuss

Are they not my image - although it was taken at ISO 1600, hand held at 1/60 sec - so I did well

I don't see 'art' there I just see that the verticals need correcting. It's an ok image but it doesn't do anything for me.

I'm not sure you should be posting someone else's photograph anyway unless it is copyright free or this has been granted for educational use.

Art like photographs is completely subjective just like Marmite.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I post images on line because I enjoy the forum and want to be part of it - particularly if I have seen a bird or dragonfly that may not be seen by others, plus nature is very important to me so the more we promote it the safer it may be - so we are back to square one.

Plotting the movement of Euro Dragonflies northwards is also quite interesting - when will the Violet Dropwing, (Trithemis annulate), get to the UK - if ever - Climate change?

All valid reasons... no argument from me. However... you sure that's all? Why, when you thought the butterfly image was mine, did you post...

Sorry Pookey, really great Butterfly shot taken with the camera phone ........ it's great, best i've seen ...... I love it, I'll try to get to your standard ......... or should I throw my stuff away and retire

?

The sarcasm there is plain.

Clearly there's a competitive element here that has nothing to do with promoting the ecological message. You pit your skills against others. I've seen you discussing bird images, and criting other's work, and taking part in threads that are not really talking about the animals and birds at all, but the photographic techniques employed by the photographer.

If what you say is true, why care about the photography?

 

[BillN_33]

I don't see 'art' there I just see that the verticals need correcting. It's an ok image but it doesn't do anything for me.

I'm not sure you should be posting someone else's photograph anyway unless it is copyright free or this has been granted for educational use.

Art like photographs is completely subjective just like Marmite.

I took the image …. predictive text got me again

It was an image of people discussing other people's art - that was the point - not that my image was art - as I have repeatedly said "I don't do art" - that was another point
Are you saying that I should not take images of other peoples "art"

I agree the verticals are "off" - but it's not a skill that I have or an too bothered about with this image

 

[BillN_33]

All valid reasons... no argument from me. However... you sure that's all? Why, when you thought the butterfly image was mine, did you post...

?

The sarcasm there is plain.

Clearly there's a competitive element here that has nothing to do with promoting the ecological message. You pit your skills against others. I've seen you discussing bird images, and criting other's work, and taking part in threads that are not really talking about the animals and birds at all, but the photographic techniques employed by the photographer.

If what you say is true, why care about the photography?

my sarcasm was total - as I pointed out

Is the butterfly the best you can do from all that I have said, you keep going back to it?

I hardly ever crit - presumably you have selective examples you can quote

here's a thread I have posted a lot on - there must be a few in there

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/dragonflies-communal-thread.553165/

 

[Pookeyhead]

Well, yes, I'm being selective. I'm aware that's not all you do, or even do often, but you do it.

I'm just saying there's more to your photography than you say there is.

 

[BillN_33]

Well, yes, I'm being selective. I'm aware that's not all you do, or even do often, but you do it.

I'm just saying there's more to your photography than you say there is.

I don't think so - I have strong political views and have expressed these on here and many have disagreed with me - I've had the odd "run in" on the Bird Section in the early days and maybe the potential is still there to repeat once the winter comes and they stop hiding, the birds I mean - but that's not unusual

I would definitely like to take better non nature images, just to please my wife … that's all …. maybe I would be pleased but I would rather see a Lammergeier in all it's glory as they are only 150 miles from me

but most of what I do is quite simple and straightforward and my photographic interest on here is obviously in one direction

All I had said is that for me Equipment is important for the shots that I take and that without this equipment I could not take some of those shot ……. and that art does not come into it as far as I am concerned

The camera phone comparison was an extreme example ……….. but I have just bought a Nikon 600mm f4, (not bragging, it's a non VR one which I bought used, I'll look after it and hopefully it will keep it's value for when I get too old to use it!!!), to try to get "better" shots of birds and I hope that I will be successful within my definition of better - so equipment, particularly my tripods and long lens are very important to me in achieving my objective

OK, luck and fieldcraft may allow me to see and photograph the 65 species of Dragon and Damselflies in the UK…. but when I do see them I want to get the best image that I can.

David, if I may now call you that, (just not keen on calling someone Pookeyhead), lets agree to differ as that's clearly where we are at - (why did you chose the name "Pookeyhead"? - answer only of you want, it's not a catch) - mine is my name and the department I live in in France

(PS, if you have any "good" Nikon gear that you don't use, I'm always interested, and i still have a couple of dreamy LTM's that I never use, plus a great 1933 Elmar, (lens), that renders beautifully, IMHO - ………. and we have not (yet) discussed GAS - God forbid!!!)

 

[Mozziephotography]

Why do forums have people slamming each other? You all have talent - enjoy using it. I don't care who likes or dislikes my photos. If someone likes them, great. If not .... I took up photography when I retired - love it! Never be as good as you lot. NOT BOTHERED.
Beats watching daytime tv or fishing.
Joined this group to learn a few things, but like another forum I was part of, it seems that if you ask a question then an argument ensues. You are hammered for NOT knowing something OR doing it differently. It isn't HURTING YOU. Chill a bit.
This is a photo I took the other day while out doing a recce for a trail race. A horse popped its head over the wall, stepped back and snapped. Composition, lighting, blah blah. Who cares... it will bring a smile to my face every time I look at it.



Time to leave the forum?

 

[simon ess]

Time to leave the forum?


View attachment 19252

Nah -just chill. It's the nature of the beast.

Picture made me smile

 

[BillN_33]

Here's one of my favourite shots, taken maybe 15 years ago with the first digital I had, a Canon IXUS, (anyone got an old battery charger, I've lost mine?)

(excuse the border - but they help me)

 

[simonblue]

This argument has been going on since the dawn of photography,sometimes I think it's just down to how some photographer want to be perceived,as artist rather than photographer.

 

[Mozziephotography]

I've more pictures of our dog than my wife.

 

[Steve Smith]

This just perpetuates the myth that art has to be somehow grungy, black and white

Al Murray's pub landlord character summed it up in an episode of Time Gentlemen Please when he stated colour is porn, black and white is art!

This is a photo I took the other day while out doing a recce for a trail race. A horse popped its head over the wall, stepped back and snapped. Composition, lighting, blah blah. Who cares..

It's a lot better than you think it is.


Steve.