Do you know who ansel adams is?

[Flukeman]

I see.. just a kind of classic photographer Tourette syndrome?

Excellent, I'll pinch that phrase After 16 yrs in the Army, I thought I'd been called everything.................. How wrong I was.

 

[daventryh]

Having read through this thread I think people need to respect other people's opinion. No one is right or wrong!

Some people are happy to pick up a camera and start snapping and live for moment, here and now, appreciate what they see through the view finder.

Others...

Like to look at the camera, read up on how it works, learn about the history, famous photographers and then take a picture.

Myself I like to learn all about the history, how I have got to hold this camera in my hands and what I can get out of it thanks to those who have experimented, but that certainly does not make me think anyone who doesn't do what I do is wrong.

Everyone has different learning styles, sees the world differently and I certainly am not going to use time telling people that my way is how everyone should do it.

Get out there take photos or read up on AA rather than arguing over who is right and wrong!

 

[Pookeyhead]

Excellent, I'll pinch that phrase After 16 yrs in the Army, I thought I'd been called everything.................. How wrong I was.

Got a mental image of walking around randomly shouting "Cecil Beaton"... "Uegene Smith"

 

[joescrivens]

Still no apology for me then David?

 

[Pookeyhead]

Still no apology for me then David?

Sorry.. for what? Have I missed something? (genuine now... not messing about).

[edit]
Never mind.. found it.

Yes, I do apologise actually. Seems I've misunderstood some of your posts.

 

[joescrivens]

Sorry.. for what? Have I missed something? (genuine now... not messing about).

[edit]
Never mind.. found it.

Yes, I do apologise actually. Seems I've misunderstood some of your posts.

Ok.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I still fail to see why this was relevant though

thats right I forgot that he had time off. Didn't he come back with a duplicate account and say something along the lines of "go screw yourselves I don't want to be part of this forum anymore"? seems like a 180

but never mind.. let's not start at it again.

 

[joescrivens]

I still fail to see why this was relevant though



but never mind.. let's not start at it again.

It was merely an observation. Nothing more. You read too much into things sometimes.

 

[POAH]

ive read this thread, and I have to agree with Pookeyhead(!) it is very important for photographers to view other peoples works to really find a style that you like.
To not at least glance at other works would slow down your own photographic development

But it's not essential to know who ansel Adams was or any other famous (well known ) photographer. There are plenty of sites like flickR, 500px photonet etc to view great photography.

 

[redhed17]

Why the attitude? If you have greater experience, then share your wisdom with us.

I meant no attitude, that's why I used the smiley face, so as not to come over as having an attitude. :shrug: Because of your profession you do have more experience than I, and I was acknowledging the fact. Sorry that you took it the wrong way.

Not just to be an "artist" no, just to take great photographs that are original and creative instead of the same stuff over and over again.

Can the same subject not be visited again and again to improve and still be creative, or even just to see something foma different view or with different light? I'm thinking of at least one example with Monet and his garden at Giverny, and particularly the bridge in the garden.

That's just ignorance talking, sorry, it just is. You blithely say "The art world" as if it's this collectively dumb group mind that you can hoodwink easily. The "Art World" you refer to isn't though, it's made up of other artists, it's made up of gallery curators, art critics, art historians, art professors... in short, people who have spent their whole lives dedicated to art. So, what qualifies you to come along as just dismiss it? Could it be you just don't understand? Is the thought of you not understanding something so abhorrent? I'm not saying you have to LIKE it... and if you don't understand something then you probably won't like it. I don't like football, but I'm well aware that it's probably because I don't really understand it. I understand the rules of the game, sure, but I don't understand the massive following.. I don't understand what it's all about. Unlike you though, I'm not going to dismiss it as BS... because that would be ignorant of me. Millions of people follow the sport with passion, so clearly there's something going on there I'm not party to... I accept that. Why can't you accept that clearly there's another side to photography, and art in general that you don't get, and leave it at that? Why trash it as BS? However, again, the irony is that one one hand you blithely dismiss the entire art world as BS, and on the other accuse me of narrow mindedness.

I've never accused anyone of being narrow minded. :nono: I accept that there are other aspects of Photography, and other routes to follow. I was telling you what I think and the route I follow. I didn't like being told that I must follow a path to get to a destination, when someone doesn't know where I want to go. If the aim of every Photographer is to be the best and be a prolific and influential artist, then maybe the route you espouse is the correct and wise route to follow. For others, it may not be relevant. Each to their own.

My opinion of anything, is my opinion. I'm not saying anyone should think the same. I've seen some works of art when I've thought, wtf! And then when I have read the blurb that goes with it, I still go wtf! I'm influenced by my experiences.

AI agree.. it's not worth the money if you are talking about the fact that it's a piece of paper/glass/wood whatever, no, but if it's worth it to collectors of art, so what? Stop basing your idea of worth on whether you LIKE it or not.

I'm not talking about the fact it's paper/glass/wood whatever. I don't like it, so I don't think it is worth the money. I don't like, er, iPhones, so I don't don't think they're worth the money. If I don't like something, am I not allowed to think it has no value, to me? :shrug:

So.. that's stuff you like. Stuff you aspire to and stuff that no doubt influences your own work. Not a great deal of difference between influenced by stuff on 500PX and stuff hanging in a gallery really is there. So if you are willing to be influenced by this, why not by someone who is acknowledged to be the best? I'm not talking about Adams now either. There are people out there taking stuff better than this, but unsurprisingly, they're not on 500px. My question is why go out of your way to avoid one body and range of work, and be wholly accepting of another? The only difference between looking at 500px and looking at, let's say a Burtinsky exhibition, is one is taken by your peers and one is taken by someone "arty farty".. so you dismiss the arty farty out of hand.

The images I like on 500px may not be something I aspire to, but it will influence me in some way of course.

I'm not going out of my way to avoid famous photographers and their work, I am just not actively seeking them out. There is a difference. I've come across Adams work in the past, which is why I said I had heard of him, just like I've happened across Cartier-Bresson's work amongst others.

There are some things I'm not interested of, and I'm wilfully ignorant of them, and intend to stay that way. We all make choices of what we want to be interested in.

Like I said we are influenced by the world around us. One can actively seek out particular influences, it's up to the individual. :shrug:

You don't need to know.. no. The reason was "I wanted to photograph the Aurora, or I wanted to photograph the sunset". Fine. I still think you're blinkering yourself to a wider world you dismiss as trash because you don't like it. You're dismissing the work of others that DO have something to say because you think it's pretentious. What's wrong with the viewer having to think a little?

I have no idea what their reasons for taking their pictures, it may have been as simple as taking a nice pic of the Aurora or Sunset. :shrug: I don't know and I don't care, I like the images they have produced.

Maybe I'm superficial and only think of things on a superficial level. Each to their own, as in most things in life.

 

[Pookeyhead]

But it's not essential to know who ansel Adams was or any other famous (well known ) photographer. There are plenty of sites like flickR, 500px photonet etc to view great photography.

Assuming that you know enough to separate from the truly good from the prescriptive and derivative, yes. There's also a lot of dross on Flickr. Looking at what is widely acknowledged to be great gives you a control by which to judge other stuff. If you're a beginner, and haven't ever looked at the true greats, then you may be thinking that stuff on Flickr is the pinnacle of achievement. It's rare you see lighting like Horst on Flickr for example. So if you want truly amazing lighting, why not first of all look at people who have gone down in history as being truly great at lighting an image rather than trawl through thousands of images to find the odd one.

I'm not dismissing Flickr... I use it like most others do, but you have to click past a lot of dross to find the good stuff sometimes... but it's mainly about establishing a benchmark and having context.

Can I ask why you seem against the idea of looking at a wider range of stuff than what's current? Seriously, what's your objection? Do you think it will somehow do you harm? If not, then maybe people should look at past masters and decide for themselves.... at least they will arrive at an informed opinion rather than perhaps listen to people like you and never see it in the first place.

 

[POAH]

I'm pretty sure people know what they like and what they don't like.

 

[Summerstar]

Heavens to Betsy - for God's sake stop!

I think this thread shows how passionate people are about photography. More than that, it shows why people are passionate, and there are probably almost as many reasons as there are photographers. Some like recording family events, some a particular aspect of their life - a favourite sport maybe. Some like making pretty pictures. And some like creating pictures which 'speak' to them, and hopefully to others as well. All of these are valid reasons for using photography, but I would suggest that only the last explores the medium of photography, and it's here that knowledge of what others have done (and are doing) is an essential part of understanding.

Me, I'm a wierd one. Photography for me is an exploration, ostensibly of the world I inhabit but at a deeper level it's an exploration of me. Pictures can go some way in explaining me to myself. At least, I think they do.

Like I said, wierd.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I'm pretty sure people know what they like and what they don't like.

"I don't know much about art, but I know what I like"


Seriously... yes, of course you are right... they know what they like... however, they don't know what they don't know... and the stuff they don't know.. they may like... but will never know.

Why impose a limit on what you may or may not like by limiting yourself to what you currently like?

It's the resistance to the very idea of digging deeper I don't get.

I meant no attitude, that's why I used the smiley face, so as not to come over as having an attitude. :shrug: Because of your profession you do have more experience than I, and I was acknowledging the fact. Sorry that you took it the wrong way.

No problem.... Dad's Army were ganging up on me at the time.. was a bit touchy.

Can the same subject not be visited again and again to improve and still be creative, or even just to see something foma different view or with different light? I'm thinking of at least one example with Monet and his garden at Giverny, and particularly the bridge in the garden.

Yes, developing an idea over time is never a bad thing in itself, and something I would actually recommend, as it stops you from machine gunning the landscape in order to get a good one. What I was referring to is that if your sources of influence and things you aspire to are all the same, then your work will become the same. Looking at a wider range of images from people acknowledged to be at the top of their game, either contemporary, or from the past can only be a good thing as inspires you to achieve greater things, and just widens your knowledge of the medium. I fail to see how this can be a bad thing.

I've never accused anyone of being narrow minded. :nono: I accept that there are other aspects of Photography, and other routes to follow. I was telling you what I think and the route I follow. I didn't like being told that I must follow a path to get to a destination, when someone doesn't know where I want to go. If the aim of every Photographer is to be the best and be a prolific and influential artist, then maybe the route you espouse is the correct and wise route to follow. For others, it may not be relevant. Each to their own.

I'm not advocating taking any particular path though, I'm advocating taking all of them.. that's my point. Why take one path only? It's not a race. Look at what you initially like the look of, and get inspired by it by all means, but don't close your mind to anything else either. For example, if you like Landscape, don't just stop at Joe Cornish, and the plethora of stuff that emulates him. He may be popular, but he's just one person. Look in places less trodden for inspiration. Have a look at the book Cape Light by Joel Meyerowitz for example. Here's some beautiful stuff by a guy probably best known by most for street photography. The colour and sense of place in that book is breathtaking. You won't see it on Flickr though.. that's my point. It would be easy to think, "Nah... I'm not into all that arty farty crap" and just dismiss the idea like some do.. and you may not have had a chance to see it. Look at Fay Godwin's work to get yet another alternative viewpoint on what landscape can look like... then perhaps take in some Edward Burtinsky who specialised in more environmental and ecological studies. Gain knowledge of others at the top of their game, then you can revisit the popular stuff with a fresh attitude.

This is nothing new as an idea in itself. Listening to classical music gives a greater appreciation of modern music. Don't believe it? Well.. maybe you don't... but until you have tried it, how do you know?.. as a bi-product, you may learn to like classical music too, and then you have a whole new world to explore. Why would anyone want to deny themselves that?

My opinion of anything, is my opinion. I'm not saying anyone should think the same. I've seen some works of art when I've thought, wtf! And then when I have read the blurb that goes with it, I still go wtf! I'm influenced by my experiences.

All art? Have you never seen works of art that have made you feel the opposite? If not, why not give it another go? You may be influenced by uyour experiences, as we all are, but unless you live a massively dynamic, turbulent, exciting, scary, sad, happy, amazing, boring, sensual, violent, peaceful...(carry on for a few hours) life... are you not limited by your limited experiences? You can gain insight into things you have no personal experience of by looking at stuff done by those that have. In an ideal world you would have personal experience of absolutely everything in the history of everything... but life is seldom ideal... so do the next best thing.

I'm not talking about the fact it's paper/glass/wood whatever. I don't like it, so I don't think it is worth the money. I don't like, er, iPhones, so I don't don't think they're worth the money. If I don't like something, am I not allowed to think it has no value, to me? :shrug:

Of course you are... No one can make you LIKE something. I don't LIKE it either, but I appreciate it. There's a difference. I am very familiar with Gursky's work though, and am not forming my opinions from one photograph. You, at a guess from your reaction, are not. So.. why familiarise yourself with ALL of his work and have an informed opinion as him as an artist. You may still reach the same conclusion: I don't like it... but at least it will be an informed opinion... and that's always the position one should form opinions from. Do you not agree?

The images I like on 500px may not be something I aspire to, but it will influence me in some way of course.

Of course.. as will everything you see and experience, so why not make that experience as wide and varied as possible?

I'm not going out of my way to avoid famous photographers and their work, I am just not actively seeking them out.

But you sound as if you are actively seeking out work on 500px et al... so why not famous photographers? That I find odd.. at some level you have become nagative towards that idea.

There are some things I'm not interested of, and I'm wilfully ignorant of them, and intend to stay that way. We all make choices of what we want to be interested in.

Again.. baffled. Wilfully ignorant. Why would anyone choose to be ignorant? What possible benefit could that be to you? All I'm suggesting is that you look at photography. You clearly look at it on 500px.. what's the difference?

Like I said we are influenced by the world around us. One can actively seek out particular influences, it's up to the individual. :shrug:

Why edit your choices? There are surprises everywhere, usually where you least expect them.

I have no idea what their reasons for taking their pictures, it may have been as simple as taking a nice pic of the Aurora or Sunset. :shrug: I don't know and I don't care, I like the images they have produced.

So do I. I'm not saying any of that work is bad. Sometimes I like to see work with more poignancy though... sometimes I like to be shocked, awed, revolted, excited, scared, reminded of my own frailness, or foolishness, or greatness, or humility... or hubris. I rarely get that from cruising Flickr, but I often get it from others you'll never find on Flickr.

Maybe I'm superficial and only think of things on a superficial level. Each to their own, as in most things in life.

Maybe you are.. I've no idea. If you are though, it sounds as if it's self-inflicted.

 

[redhed17]

Is it so different? You must have heard term 'Sunday painter. People who go to night school classes to learn to paint in watercolour or oil to make paintings that are not art. They have as little interest in Emin or Wallinger as some here are professing to have in Adams. Although they may know a little about Renoir. All they wish to do is to paint nice pictures. They have no ambitions or pretensions beyond that.

In all hobbies there are those who strive to be as good as they possibly can and to immerse themselves in it's history and more, and those who do it for the simple pleasure of doing it. There is an undeniable pleasure in just pressing a button and hearing the the shutter fire. That you can also make a picture while doing that is almost a bonus!

I guess what I am saying is that I can see both sides of this debate. Although I couldn't conceive of wanting to plough a lone furrow to make photographs that are nothing more than 'nice pictures' without really challenging myself, and to learn nothing of the history, theory or philosophy of photography, I can understand that that there are people who want nothing more than that from their hobby.

Trying to turn them from what could be termed 'pleasure photographers' into 'serious photographers' is likely an unwinnable battle. Just because their aspirations appear, to you, to be extremely limited doesn't mean that they do not get satisfaction and enjoyment from taking photographs, and from trying to improve their photographs within their own terms of reference.

Where this disparity of approaches to photography stem from is the very simplicity of the medium. No matter how you approach photography all there is to it is; frame, expose, print. (In terms of film, that is. Digitally the last becomes upload I suppose!) The level of thought you put into those three elements is purely a personal choice. As is what you do with the results.

For me it is this simplicity that is the greatest strength of photography. With photography being a (the?) most egalitarian medium I think people should be allowed to pursue it in any way they choose, rather than having one set of values pushed down their throats as The Set Of Values which must be followed.

Most people do not like being told what they ought to do. A more subtle approach to encourage a broadening of outlook might be to make gentle suggestions for work to be viewed, books to be read, in order that enlightenment might be follow.

Rather than castigate people for not knowing who a photographer is, or not wanting to know, a few links might be in order to challenge people's views of what photography, and art, can be.

I liked this post.

 

[ZoneV]

...they know what they like... however, they don't know what they don't know... and the stuff they don't know.. they may like... but will never know.

Very well put.

Why choose to "sign-off" and close the list of things to like? Is it something that happens one day - the person wakes up one morning and thinks, "You know what, I think I like enough things now. Yup, that'll do." Never again to explore?

 

[redhed17]

This is nothing new as an idea in itself. Listening to classical music gives a greater appreciation of modern music. Don't believe it? Well.. maybe you don't... but until you have tried it, how do you know?.. as a bi-product, you may learn to like classical music too, and then you have a whole new world to explore. Why would anyone want to deny themselves that?

That could be said of any music.

All art? Have you never seen works of art that have made you feel the opposite? If not, why not give it another go? You may be influenced by uyour experiences, as we all are, but unless you live a massively dynamic, turbulent, exciting, scary, sad, happy, amazing, boring, sensual, violent, peaceful...(carry on for a few hours) life... are you not limited by your limited experiences? You can gain insight into things you have no personal experience of by looking at stuff done by those that have. In an ideal world you would have personal experience of absolutely everything in the history of everything... but life is seldom ideal... so do the next best thing.

I think I said 'some works of art'.

Yes, I could spend my life seeking out new experiences, but I don't, I live my life and experience whatever happens. If that is pictures, music, paintings, sculture or whatever along the way, if that makes my life and experience small, then so be it.

You sound like you have a life of constant new experiences, and good luck to you. We live different lives. Neither is better or worse than the other, just different. :shrug:

I am very familiar with Gursky's work though, and am not forming my opinions from one photograph. You, at a guess from your reaction, are not. So.. why familiarise yourself with ALL of his work and have an informed opinion as him as an artist. You may still reach the same conclusion: I don't like it... but at least it will be an informed opinion... and that's always the position one should form opinions from. Do you not agree?

I don't understand what someone else's pictures have to do with a picture in front of me. I don't like this, but show me more.

If it were a none famous photographer would the same advice be given? If someone doesn't like a picture I'm showing them, I don't say, hold that thought, you have to see it in the context of my other work.

Then you can say it's cr*p.

This is actually one of the things I dislike about some that are famous in any field, their work is suddenly not judged in the same way as the man in the street. The name can sometimes overtake the quality of the work. Some of say Ansel Adams (for example, it could be anyone) images may be great, and may be seen as valuable to some, but how does that increase the value of his rubbish pics? It becomes it's an Ansel Adams, and so worth something, rather than a good picture that is worth something.

This is one of the things I mean when I say the 'art world BS'. If someone buys one of my images (never happened ) would that suddenly convey more value to the rest of my images? :shrug: It shouldn't, if the rest of the images are not as good as the image that was sold.

But you sound as if you are actively seeking out work on 500px et al... so why not famous photographers? That I find odd.. at some level you have become nagative towards that idea.

I look at pics on 500px because I have put some of my images on 500px. I see pictures here and on other sites, but I'm not studying anyone's images. I may pick up things from them, but I want it to be natural rather than a pre-planned thing.

Again.. baffled. Wilfully ignorant. Why would anyone choose to be ignorant? What possible benefit could that be to you? All I'm suggesting is that you look at photography. You clearly look at it on 500px.. what's the difference?

I meant ignorant of other things in my life, but I understand the confusion. I listen to music all the time, but I have no interest in thrash metal, reggae, rap, prog rock, and many more genres. I am wilfully ignorant of them. Would listening to them make me appreciate what I like? Probably, but I don't think I want to put myself through it thanks.

Why edit your choices? There are surprises everywhere, usually where you least expect them.

We all edit our choices to some degree, it seems that I am quite open about mine. And I like to happen across things. If I happen not to see something someone thinks is important, then so be it. :shrug:

I'm not saying any of that work is bad. Sometimes I like to see work with more poignancy though... sometimes I like to be shocked, awed, revolted, excited, scared, reminded of my own frailness, or foolishness, or greatness, or humility... or hubris. I rarely get that from cruising Flickr, but I often get it from others you'll never find on Flickr.

I like to see different types of images, not just images similar to images I like to take. We obviously look for different things in the images we view.

I have a few images on Flickr, but that was for research on how the site works. I don't visit the site or get actively involved in any groups there.

[/QUOTE]Maybe you are.. I've no idea. If you are though, it sounds as if it's self-inflicted.[/QUOTE]

All my choices are self inflicted, the way it should be imho.

 

[ernesto]

The 12 pages largely seem to be because the ignorant (in a nice way!) are too keen to defend their ignorance instead of just accepting it.

So you are interested in photography (enough to join a forum where photography is the main discussion point) yet do not know all the major photographers. A good response would have been "thanks for letting me know about person X, I wasn't aware of them and will take a quick look at them/their work when I get a few minutes" or at the very least "I am not interested, I just like to get out and take photos"

 

[steveclem]

The f64 club.

 

[Pookeyhead]

That could be said of any music.

Yep... which is why you should listen to it all, not just seek out what you already know you like.

You sound like you have a life of constant new experiences, and good luck to you. We live different lives. Neither is better or worse than the other, just different. :shrug:

Of course I don't. That's my point.... which I think you missed.

If it were a none famous photographer would the same advice be given? If someone doesn't like a picture I'm showing them, I don't say, hold that thought, you have to see it in the context of my other work.

No, but if someone took one look at one of your images, then called all your work crap and refused to look because there's simply no point, you'd probably think they were being a little silly about it.

Then you can say it's cr*p.

But I'd be saying it's crap having actually seen it, which is an informed opinion. Calling someone crap after having seen one photo is not an informed opinion. So, yes.. you may still not like that person's work, but at least your opinion if informed. Plus.. you may actually like it.. that's my point. Unless you lok and don't dismiss things out of hand, you'll never know, will you.

This is actually one of the things I dislike about some that are famous in any field, their work is suddenly not judged in the same way as the man in the street.

Well.. not quite true is it, because people are still becoming famous now. So that implies that their new work is also being taken seriously by the same people you accuse of elitism. So it's being judged in the same way. Look in Magazines like Source or Foam.. you'll see loads of brand new work from unheard of photographers.

The name can sometimes overtake the quality of the work. Some of say Ansel Adams (for example, it could be anyone) images may be great, and may be seen as valuable to some, but how does that increase the value of his rubbish pics? It becomes it's an Ansel Adams, and so worth something, rather than a good picture that is worth something.

I don't think so. There's lots of Adams work that would never command the same price as is more famous work. It would still probably go for more than a fiver, yes, of course because it's now also of historical importance... but that happens when someone becomes famous. There are plenty of unheard of photographers though who are doing great things. It's not JUST Adams I'm referring to, or just famous photographers (although it's a logical place to start). I'm just saying if all you have as a frame of reference is 500px, Flickr et al, then you're getting a narrow slice of what's out there.

This is one of the things I mean when I say the 'art world BS'. If someone buys one of my images (never happened ) would that suddenly convey more value to the rest of my images? :shrug: It shouldn't, if the rest of the images are not as good as the image that was sold.

It's not BS though... The more work you sell, the more people will pay attention to you. therefore the likelihood of others seeing your work increases... and so will your price. It will be YOU increasing the price by the way... and you won't think it's BS then will you

Nothing new here. You're more likely to get commercial or advertising work if you have tear sheets in your portfolio, because it demonstrates that you can do the job, and people have already paid you and been happy with the results. It means you are reliable and professional. Pretty much the same in the art world. People like to see work mature over time, and admire artists that haven't just had a happy accident with a couple of shots, but are dedicated and will be prolific so they will be able to go and see their work exhibited. Which by the way... is the only worthy way of seeing work. Looking at work on a screen is utter crap compared to seeing it very well presented and hung in a gallery. Nothing new there either.. this is why people like to see bands live is it not?

I look at pics on 500px because I have put some of my images on 500px. I see pictures here and on other sites, but I'm not studying anyone's images. I may pick up things from them, but I want it to be natural rather than a pre-planned thing.

So if you get influenced subconsciously that's OK... but if you make an effort to gain more insight and influence, it's not? How does that work. Make the effort, and you will get more ideas, more influence, more diversity in your work.

I meant ignorant of other things in my life, but I understand the confusion. I listen to music all the time, but I have no interest in thrash metal, reggae, rap, prog rock, and many more genres. I am wilfully ignorant of them. Would listening to them make me appreciate what I like? Probably, but I don't think I want to put myself through it thanks.

Fine.... Look.. people do what they want, and no one in here is TELLING you what to do... but I used to think like this myself. I used to hate Reggae, but one day I heard a Derrick Morgan album, and I loved it. Prior to that, I had a very different view of Reggae because my experience of it was limited to what you heard on the radio. However, that was only a small slice of what was actually available, and only representative of what was currently popular in the Reggae scene.... pretty much as Flickr and 500px is representative of what is popular now. If you want to impose limits on your own creativity, then fine... carry on using 500px as your main source of reference. It's up to you. Just be aware it's only a small slice of a great big cake.


The internet has made people lazy. I bet you didn't go to any exhibitions over the Liverpool Biennial did you... right on your doorstep too.

 

[joescrivens]

Is it just me or does this thread have the record for the number of multi quoted posts ever.

It's like trying to read Lord of the Rings upside down.

 

[POAH]

Is it just me o does this thread have the record for the number of multi quoted posts ever.

It's like trying to read Lord of the Rings upside down.

Try it on an iPhone lol

 

[POAH]

Very well put.

Why choose to "sign-off" and close the list of things to like? Is it something that happens one day - the person wakes up one morning and thinks, "You know what, I think I like enough things now. Yup, that'll do." Never again to explore?

I don't think anyone is saying don't look. I'm saying you don't have to look at specific photographers.

 

[redhed17]

Is it just me or does this thread have the record for the number of multi quoted posts ever.

It's like trying to read Lord of the Rings upside down.

I'm sorry for my contribution to that.

Saying that,

But I'd be saying it's crap having actually seen it, which is an informed opinion. Calling someone crap after having seen one photo is not an informed opinion. So, yes.. you may still not like that person's work, but at least your opinion if informed. Plus.. you may actually like it.. that's my point. Unless you lok and don't dismiss things out of hand, you'll never know, will you.

I think I've been very clear in saying that I didn't like the most expensive photograph in the world, I don't think I mentioned what I thought of the Photographer did I? :shrug:

The internet has made people lazy. I bet you didn't go to any exhibitions over the Liverpool Biennial did you... right on your doorstep too.

Yes, you're right, I'm lazy. I could lie and say that I went and saw many things, but I looked at the programmes of what was on offer and nothing appealed. Yes, there could have been some amazing things I missed, but if nothing appeals, why should I force myself? Yes, possibly broaden the mind etc, but I'll use my time more effectively, while my photography 'hobby' is a large part of my life, it is not my only interest.

 

[daventryh]

Is this a tread solely for redhead and pookeyhead or can anyone else join in?

 

[joescrivens]

Is this a tread solely for redhead and pookeyhead or can anyone else join in?

if your name doesn't have "head" in it, then you're not coming in.

 

[daventryh]

if your name doesn't have "head" in it, then you're not coming in.

Must refrain from elaborating on this

 

[Cg_Girl]

Having read through this thread I think people need to respect other people's opinion. No one is right or wrong!

Some people are happy to pick up a camera and start snapping and live for moment, here and now, appreciate what they see through the view finder.

Others...

Like to look at the camera, read up on how it works, learn about the history, famous photographers and then take a picture.

Myself I like to learn all about the history, how I have got to hold this camera in my hands and what I can get out of it thanks to those who have experimented, but that certainly does not make me think anyone who doesn't do what I do is wrong.

Everyone has different learning styles, sees the world differently and I certainly am not going to use time telling people that my way is how everyone should do it.

Get out there take photos or read up on AA rather than arguing over who is right and wrong!

Totally agree!....

 

[ZoneV]

I don't think anyone is saying don't look. I'm saying you don't have to look at specific photographers.

I don't think anyone is saying you have to look. I'm saying I don't understand the reluctance to look, I.e. "I know what I like". It seems very close minded to me.

Look at something and decide you don't like it? Fine.
Decide you don't like something before looking? Why would someone choose to do that?

 

[joescrivens]

I don't think anyone is saying you have to look. I'm saying I don't understand the reluctance to look, I.e. "I know what I like". It seems very close minded to me.

Look at something and decide you don't like it? Fine.
Decide you don't like something before looking? Why would someone choose to do that?

I agree with your point but let's ask another question

"Why do you care enough to debate so much about it when it's someone elses choice/ignorance?"

 

[ZoneV]

I agree with your point but let's ask another question

"Why do you care enough to debate so much about it when it's someone elses choice/ignorance?"

Why do you care enough to ask such a question?

(This could go on for some time - your turn. )

Edit: Seriously though, I'm intertested in the discussion but I wouldn't say I "care" as such - it's just a chat.

 

[joescrivens]

Why do you care enough to ask such a question?

(This could go on for some time - your turn. )

It doesn't need to go on and on, you could just answer the question :shrug:

This thread is now 12 pages and after about 6 useful ones it is now going round and round. It has now clearly been identified that some people just don't want to research into it, and I agree more fool them for having that opinion but why are those that feel this way still hammering on about it trying to force this view?

So what if those people don't want to research, so what if it means they produce less creative content etc - what does it matter? It doesn't affect those that do so why the need to keep hammering at it?

 

[Cg_Girl]

"I don't know much about art, but I know what I like"


Seriously... yes, of course you are right... they know what they like... however, they don't know what they don't know... and the stuff they don't know.. they may like... but will never know.

Why impose a limit on what you may or may not like by limiting yourself to what you currently like?

It's the resistance to the very idea of digging deeper I don't get.




MY COMMENT STARTS HERE......... mucked up the quote thingy:bonk::bonk:




This comment struck me, i like it but i think it's the same with anything in life you have to WANT to,

I get that you don't understand the resistance and i'm with you on that but you can't change people or peoples views unless they are open to it, sad for a lot of situations especially about things we are passionate about

 

[ZoneV]

It doesn't need to go on and on, you could just answer the question :shrug:

This thread is now 12 pages and after about 6 useful ones it is now going round and round. It has now clearly been identified that some people just don't want to research into it, and I agree more fool them for having that opinion but why are those that feel this way still hammering on about it trying to force this view?

So what if those people don't want to research, so what if it means they produce less creative content etc - what does it matter? It doesn't affect those that do so why the need to keep hammering at it?

If you're bored with it, you don't have to read it, Joe.

 

[joescrivens]

If you're bored with it, you don't have to read it, Joe.

I didn't say I was bored with it. I asked a question which you have avoided twice now.

 

[ZoneV]

I didn't say I was bored with it. I asked a question which you have avoided twice now.

Well, that's a pity isn't it? What shall we do?

 

[Cg_Girl]

It doesn't need to go on and on, you could just answer the question :shrug:

This thread is now 12 pages and after about 6 useful ones it is now going round and round. It has now clearly been identified that some people just don't want to research into it, and I agree more fool them for having that opinion but why are those that feel this way still hammering on about it trying to force this view?

So what if those people don't want to research, so what if it means they produce less creative content etc - what does it matter? It doesn't affect those that do so why the need to keep hammering at it?

Is it not because it's something so passionate to them they feel they HAVE TO/WANT TO/NEED TO change others opinions?

 

[joescrivens]

Is it not because it's something so passionate to them they feel they HAVE TO/WANT TO/NEED TO change others opinions?

I'm not sure, which is why I was asking for clarification. But it would appear that a sensible question like that can't be answered and instead results in petty baiting.

Guess we just carry on with the debate then. Back on topic.

 

[ZoneV]

Is it not because it's something so passionate to them they feel they HAVE TO/WANT TO/NEED TO change others opinions?

Is it not just a discussion, on a discussion board? :shrug:

 

[ernesto]

We could always just look at the poll results!

Around 10% of people turn out to be ignorant. That is pretty good going when in my experience around 90% of people are generally ignorant. Well done forum.