How Creative are you..............Really?

[Daryl]

Other way round for me David...

younger days it was all about art, creative getting the job , drinking shagging going where the work was.

Now in later years I knuckled down. I don't have pension schemes etc. so build ing a company is my pension.

the schools work took over every other work we did. because we did styles and shoots the Nationals would not could not... It took over more than other work. so we went in the direction of the money.

Now its running its self with a good team we are now moving back to work I love and that's product and advert work.. were being ''Creative'' comes back in.

Art for arts sake? Never been that way...... Unless you find a stash of hidden Nazi paintings in your loft and you can fence them off. Art for arts sake may liberate the senses and provoke thought... But it does not pay the bills and pay all mistress.....

Studying the arts is what should be 'The Hobby'' You have to forgive my next line David . Honest question here so no sarcasm.
what does the Arts Degree get you?
Not from the self learning and pushing ones knowledge. I mean from future careers? Work in museum? In a swanky art Gallery in Chelsea?

I don't know much about arts degree so looking at benefits apart from the pursuit of self knowledge and gratification.

 

[Daryl]

To me success is measured by how many people want to show, display, or publish or even show interest in my work these days. I got fed up or being a photographic prostitute.

You see I'm looking at 'Photography'' differently now. I did most of that in my early days.

Been published in some top glossy's , published work in most if not all papers and fare few few magazines..... Had work in books from Archaeological years as a photographer. and shed lodes of work people have bought to hang on their walls etc....

I am proud I have never done any other job that did not involve having a Camera in my hand or in a pro lab.....

And get what you say

I have all the things I need. Lovely wife. A house... nice things in the house, decent food on the table, nice car etc. Sorted. Basically... all boxes ticked.

I have all that, but the last challenge is to build something achieve making a business in this fragile industry. ( nothing to do with creativity that bit. just an off shoot from striving to achieve something)
Creativity/Technical Ability and ambition in all those areas and more...... Are what I'm about.....

I can't see myself stopping or retiring either.... I love the Photographic industry... in it's entirety.

Went off track there sorry....

 

[Pookeyhead]

Other way round for me David...

I thought as much. At least you're not slagging me off for disagreeing with you though.. which is refreshing.

what does the Arts Degree get you?
Not from the self learning and pushing ones knowledge. I mean from future careers? Work in museum? In a swanky art Gallery in Chelsea?

Quite simply, it gets you work in an arena that values all the stuff I bang on about, which is advertising, publishing, editorial, fashion, documentary... DEFINITELY documentary... fine art (shudder at the term... no idea what else to call it though)... stuff like that. So yes... curator in a gallery? A degree... preferably a MA. Fashion photographer (editorial)? Definitely a degree... you need to have that critical, satirical, questioning mind that only comes from the debate and seminar content, and the reading a degree gives you. Editorial... a degree... it's akin to documentary... so you need that ability to tell the story, and that comes from being reflexive and sensitive to cultures and society in general... which again is an academic pursuit, not a photographic one. Landscape? Perhaps... depends if you wanna be Joe Cornish, or Edward Burtinsky...

Basically.... as you can see... it has uses, and there are parts of the industry that needs graduates to have a critical, questioning, broad education rather than training.

However... Commercial, industrial, low end fashion (non editorial) like catalogue stuff, schools, social portraiture, weddings, press, sports.... etc... Will not be served very well by a degree at all. This is not to say these are not as important. I think this is where the antagonism comes from. People assume that anyone from an art background looks down on this, which is crap. It's just NOT part of the world a BA (Hons) prepares you for. That's what HNDs and City & Guilds, or even private, subject specific training courses are for.

Apples and oranges.

I don't know much about arts degree so looking at benefits apart from the pursuit of self knowledge and gratification.

To be honest... I doubt there's much of a benefit for you and your line of work.. unless you just find it interesting of course. And for the benefit of the pitchfork wielders, that was not a disparaging comment towards Daryl. I suspect he agrees with me completely.

 

[Daryl]

no arguments there.

do have to say with my friends that got me to meet togs that supplied work to mags like Vogue and Tatler etc... no big names.. out of three none had a degree.... 2 had C&G no idea what the third dude had. all were creative to a point. They were all with 'The In crowd''. again who they knew.

One was an arrogant Toewragg who had a crew setting lights. stylists did clothes and props and make up artists worked to the director for the shoot... tog boy wonders in takes a roll of film then buggers off out sight and the machine starts turning for the next set.... He was not creative as there were 20 plus people running about taking orders from storyboard and art director. who in all honesty could click the button themselves and save £40k on tog boy just pressing the shutter.

That was the experience that put me off to be honest.

 

[Pookeyhead]

no arguments there.

do have to say with my friends that got me to meet togs that supplied work to mags like Vogue and Tatler etc... no big names.. out of three none had a degree.... 2 had C&G no idea what the third dude had. all were creative to a point. They were all with 'The In crowd''. again who they knew.

One was an arrogant Toewragg who had a crew setting lights. stylists did clothes and props and make up artists worked to the director for the shoot... tog boy wonders in takes a roll of film then buggers off out sight and the machine starts turning for the next set.... He was not creative as there were 20 plus people running about taking orders from storyboard and art director. who in all honesty could click the button themselves and save £40k on tog boy just pressing the shutter.

That was the experience that put me off to be honest.

You'll always meet people who are successful without a degree, sure. It doesn't mean YOU don't need one though. Those arguments are like the ones people who are crap at maths come out with... "Einstein failed maths in school" etc... It's just usually to make themselves feel better. Otherwise, why has education been the cornerstone of civilisation for thousands of years? Incidentally, Einstein did not fail maths at school... he was incredibly good at it... he was a physicist.... you cant really do that without maths

What you wouldn't have seen (if that was a shot for Vogue) was the preparation for that shot though Daryl. There would have been a great deal of planning for it, and those other people would have been doing exactly what the photographer and editor wanted them to do. You may as well suggest that Gregory Crewdson is not responsible for this work either... he didn't even press the button!

If you want to see how the fashion photography industry works... watch the documentary film "The September Issue".

 

[Ed Sutton]

I love the change in light you get from night to morning and evening to night, its remarkable to see how everything just changes in that time. But I am merely putting myself in a position to capture that. I am not creating anything.

But what you do involves a number of choices and decisions all of which are creative.

You might not create the scene before you, but you don't 'capture' it. A photograph is not the thing itself. Assuming you take some care over your photographs you create how that scene appears within the frame by selecting the camera's precise position, the lens's focal length, the shutter speed and aperture, the exposure and the exact timing of the shutter's release. If you make a number of photographs of a scene as the light changes you then make further creative choices by picking out the 'best' one.

Making decisions might not fit your definition of 'creative', but sure fits mine.

 

[SFTPhotography]

But what you do involves a number of choices and decisions all of which are creative.

You might not create the scene before you, but you don't 'capture' it. A photograph is not the thing itself. Assuming you take some care over your photographs you create how that scene appears within the frame by selecting the camera's precise position, the lens's focal length, the shutter speed and aperture, the exposure and the exact timing of the shutter's release. If you make a number of photographs of a scene as the light changes you then make further creative choices by picking out the 'best' one.

Making decisions might not fit your definition of 'creative', but sure fits mine.

All these are technical skills IMHO. The composition and time of day elements are as creative as it gets and to be honest these are all well documented skills. Shoot in a low sun, shoot in blue hour, its been done so many times before me, I have to ask whether its truly creative, its nothing new.

I prefer the phrase documentary photography or showing something under the best light...

I take great care and have huge pride in my photo's and like to convey a feeling of stillness and calmness in my work (so I am drawn often to still water and will seek out tides and weather to give it), or show the beauty of an area I am visiting at the time. But its a documentary of that place, at that time.

 

[Ed Sutton]

All these are technical skills IMHO. The composition and time of day elements are as creative as it gets and to be honest these are all well documented skills. Shoot in a low sun, shoot in blue hour, its been done so many times before me, I have to ask whether its truly creative, its nothing new.

Well if all you do is follow the rules, then yes, it is technical. But no two photographers are likely to take the same photo at the same time in the same place so there has to be something beyond the technical involved or we'd all make the same pictures.

Can documentary photographs not be creatively conceived and executed? Many of the great photographs have been primarily documentary, but they manage to transcend being simple record shots. Look at Steve McCurry's work for example, or Cartier-Bresson's.

 

[SFTPhotography]

Well if all you do is follow the rules, then yes, it is technical. But no two photographers are likely to take the same photo at the same time in the same place so there has to be something beyond the technical involved or we'd all make the same pictures.

No, but often if you go to a popular spot, you will leave with a similar image to someone with you or who has been before. There is an element of creativity or as I would say visualising what you want, then using the technical skills to get it.

I love that spot in Glencoe of Buchaille Etive Mor, yes mine will look different (slightly ) to the thousands that have gone before, but its a cliched view of a well known subject. Its a very pretty location and I love pretty pictures, they look nice and I like nice looking things.

_DSC0184 by SFTPhotography, on Flickr

That doesn't make taking pictures there a bad thing, just not a creative thing. You can plan it to be in great light, great conditions but if you have, doubtless another tog has. Thats a bit of creativity but its not art or anything like it, its just good photography.

Can documentary photographs not be creatively conceived and executed? Many of the great photographs have been primarily documentary, but they manage to transcend being simple record shots. Look at Steve McCurry's work for example, or Cartier-Bresson's.

A fair point and well raised.

 

[Pookeyhead]

But what you do involves a number of choices and decisions all of which are creative.

You might not create the scene before you, but you don't 'capture' it. A photograph is not the thing itself. Assuming you take some care over your photographs you create how that scene appears within the frame by selecting the camera's precise position, the lens's focal length, the shutter speed and aperture, the exposure and the exact timing of the shutter's release. If you make a number of photographs of a scene as the light changes you then make further creative choices by picking out the 'best' one.

Making decisions might not fit your definition of 'creative', but sure fits mine.

They are decisions made that can be taken creatively... or they can be mere technical issues you apply because you were told to. "Landscapes use wide lenses"... "Portraits should be shot with a 85mm", "Subject hould be on a third intersection"... crap like that.

The first question asked should be "Why did you create this image?"

Well if all you do is follow the rules, then yes, it is technical. But no two photographers are likely to take the same photo at the same time in the same place so there has to be something beyond the technical involved or we'd all make the same pictures.

Can documentary photographs not be creatively conceived and executed? Many of the great photographs have been primarily documentary, but they manage to transcend being simple record shots. Look at Steve McCurry's work for example, or Cartier-Bresson's.

Maybe not EXACTLY the same, but the differences are probably as you say.. down to time and light direction... but.....

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=durdle door&safe=off&biw=2481&bih=1400&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=StzlVMWBMISz7AbDmoGwDg&sqi=2&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAg&dpr=0.9


Come on... creative?

If two photgraphers point their same cameras at the same thing, at the same time, then yes, they will get the same shot. Which is why creativity is rarely a technical pursuit and why so much amateur (and pro for that matter) work is pap.

 

[SFTPhotography]

The first question asked should be "Why did you create this image?"
.

Because I wanted to. I thought it was pretty and would look nice (to me).

Because it captures the memory of somewhere I was and I wished to remember it long after. Because I can show it to people who weren't there and they can see it.

Because I loved being there and it captured the feeling and splendour of the place.

Because I enjoy taking pictures.

Not every deep and insightful, but its just the person I am.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Because I wanted to. I thought it was pretty and would look nice (to me).

Because it captures the memory of somewhere I was and I wished to remember it long after. Because I can show it to people who weren't there and they can see it.

Because I loved being there and it captured the feeling and splendour of the place.

The same reasons tourists take snapshots then. So what differentiates yours from theirs if not just technicalities? So with that in mind, is your image worth any more than the guy who came along to that same spot 10 minutes later and took the same image on a iPhone?

 

[Steve Smith]

Healthcare is different, it matters to the survival of people. Spurious things like cosmetic surgery shouldn't be free. Fundamental things like heart surgery, chemotherpay should. School education is fundamental, university isn't.

My son will be attending university interviews to study to be a paramedic next month. In my opinion, that is for the good of society. Who should pay?

We can't afford his fees so it will be a student loan.


Steve.

 

[Daryl]

Creativity and technical skill go hand in hand. you can't have one with out the other in photography at least.

You may have an amazing piece of work in mind but with out the technical know how and know how to use the tools required to bring this work to life it would just be an idea and nothing more.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Creativity and technical skill go hand in hand. you can't have one with out the other in photography at least.

You may have an amazing piece of work in mind but with out the technical know how and know how to use the tools required to bring this work to life it would just be an idea and nothing more.

I partly agree. Some fantastic images have been taken by people who's motivation was not photography though, and they had no skill... relying on automatic cameras. What made them great was why they were even there taking that image in the first place.

 

[SFTPhotography]

The same reasons tourists take snapshots then. So what differentiates yours from theirs?

Probably not an awful lot. Mine are maybe more technically better and taken at times of day often you won't find tourists there, more care has gone into the composition and exposure as well as the lighting/weather conditions.

But other than that, not a lot if I am truthfully honest.

I went for a walk along the west highland way with a pal 2 weeks back. I took this image, it struck me as a great view, but in reality, its a snapshot from that moment. Given its an arduous walk less folk will have an image like this, but its not creative at all. I am comfortable with that. SOmeone else could have easily taken this with a camera if they were there at the time. The abilities to take this aren't massive. Exposure and framing a shot and holding the camera still, its not creative.

Just being there was great, and to be honest, thats good enough for me.

_DSC3059 (1) by SFTPhotography, on Flickr

So with that in mind, is your image worth any more than the guy who came along to that same spot 10 minutes later and took the same image on a iPhone?

I get were you are going. Other than it being mine and personal to me, not a lot. Mine would be sharper and probably better exposed.

But I like to have my own images to recal where I've been, not others

 

[StephenM]

Because I wanted to. I thought it was pretty and would look nice (to me).

Because it captures the memory of somewhere I was and I wished to remember it long after. Because I can show it to people who weren't there and they can see it.

Because I loved being there and it captured the feeling and splendour of the place.

Because I enjoy taking pictures.

Not every deep and insightful, but its just the person I am.

I'm going to hate myself for posting again...

I'd personally start with your first two reasons and use them to ask myself questions before setting up my camera.

OK, I want to. Why do I want to? What is that attracts me? Why does it look pretty? How can I best bring out the essentials of these?

Why did I love being there? What was it? In what exactly does the feeling and splendour consist? How can I best bring this out to reveal it to others?

I looked at your Glencoe photo above and immediately started wondering about the differences that a slight change of position would have made. The most obvious objects to me were the tree and the mini waterfall, and I started wondering about the different moods that could have been invoked by changing the camera position and lens focal length to make adjustments to relative sizes and relationships.

That's just the way my mind works...

 

[Pookeyhead]

Probably not an awful lot. Mine are maybe more technically better and taken at times of day often you won't find tourists there, more care has gone into the composition and exposure as well as the lighting/weather conditions.

To what end?

Why not spend some time thinking about why you're even there. I know you like it... it's a nice place... all of that. But WHY? What IS the essence of that place.. why does it resonate with you? What would you have to do to capture the FEELINGS you get when you're there. Forget technical crap for a minute, or whether you use a Zeiss lens or not, or what aperture... get a bit poetic... spiritual... is it even the place you actually should be photographing? Sure... you have some nice shots of the place now, but what about that sense of place.. What IS it about PLACES that do this to us? What is a PLACE anyway?

I could literally spend a whole say just sitting here thinking about this, and probably end up with trying to capture PLACE... not any place, but the essence of PLACES.. NON-PLACES, constructed PLACES....


I'm getting that excited feeling I get when I feel a project coming on just contemplating it. None of this has got anything to do with photography. Ultimately, I'd probably use a camera to produce what I needed to produce.... but it's really not about photography. I'd go as far to say that the best photography isn't really anything to do with photography... just as the best paintings are not really about paint.

 

[SFTPhotography]

I'm going to hate myself for posting again...

I'd personally start with your first two reasons and use them to ask myself questions before setting up my camera.

OK, I want to. Why do I want to? What is that attracts me? Why does it look pretty? How can I best bring out the essentials of these?

Why did I love being there? What was it? In what exactly does the feeling and splendour consist? How can I best bring this out to reveal it to others?

I looked at your Glencoe photo above and immediately started wondering about the differences that a slight change of position would have made. The most obvious objects to me were the tree and the mini waterfall, and I started wondering about the different moods that could have been invoked by changing the camera position and lens focal length to make adjustments to relative sizes and relationships.

That's just the way my mind works...

I am not as deep a thinker. My fatal flaw with that comp was cutting the falls off IMHO and the best of the light had gone, 30mins earlier the light would be richer, more golden and more pretty. It just looks pretty, my insightfulness doesn't go that far. My plan was to be there earlier when I knew the light would be richer, but my lift doesn't drive as fast as me.

 

[Steve Smith]

My plan was to be there earlier when I knew the light would be richer, but my lift doesn't drive as fast as me.

You could always leave earlier!


Steve.

 

[Fodrigal]

To what end?

Why not spend some time thinking about why you're even there. I know you like it... it's a nice place... all of that. But WHY? What IS the essence of that place.. why does it resonate with you? What would you have to do to capture the FEELINGS you get when you're there. Forget technical crap for a minute, or whether you use a Zeiss lens or not, or what aperture... get a bit poetic... spiritual... is it even the place you actually should be photographing? Sure... you have some nice shots of the place now, but what about that sense of place.. What IS it about PLACES that do this to us? What is a PLACE anyway?

I could literally spend a whole say just sitting here thinking about this, and probably end up with trying to capture PLACE... not any place, but the essence of PLACES.. NON-PLACES, constructed PLACES....


I'm getting that excited feeling I get when I feel a project coming on just contemplating it. None of this has got anything to do with photography. Ultimately, I'd probably use a camera to produce what I needed to produce.... but it's really not about photography. I'd go as far to say that the best photography isn't really anything to do with photography... just as the best paintings are not really about paint.

This is why I would love to do a degree in photography

The cost and time required means that I can't though, I should have just done it 10 years ago!!!

 

[SFTPhotography]

To what end?

Why not spend some time thinking about why you're even there. I know you like it... it's a nice place... all of that. But WHY? What IS the essence of that place.. why does it resonate with you? What would you have to do to capture the FEELINGS you get when you're there. Forget technical crap for a minute, or whether you use a Zeiss lens or not, or what aperture... get a bit poetic... spiritual... is it even the place you actually should be photographing? Sure... you have some nice shots of the place now, but what about that sense of place.. What IS it about PLACES that do this to us? What is a PLACE anyway? .

I'm a believer a picture speaks 1000 words. The Glencoe place, it was the calm and tranqulity of the location. I am a terrible insomniac, I feel crap a lot. I can go to the countryside, take in the view, and just feel good even after a night on non sleep. Uplifted. On a still day, say at Loch Tulla you can just look at the view, and suddenly just feel relaxed. I try to capture that and hope others if they see my image have that feeling I did at that time. I remember looking at this, and thinking, thank god I am here and not at work. It was a feeling of complete joy and bliss. So calming, so relaxing. I have another from that day in my wall. It looks pretty and is a happy memory.

_DSC3567 by SFTPhotography, on Flickr

On the west highland way the feeling of complete remoteness and no one else being there.

With say Newcastle Quayside lets say, its the mix of old and new that resonates, the new buildings point to the renovation of the city and a vibrant future but the old to its industrial past. You can feel it looking at it, talking to people there. Its all constructed and the city shows its past through its construction. Same with Rome, I loved Rome, everywhere is man made beauty, elegance. Its the home of modern day christendom, its splendour and pomp its a spectacle to keep generations of people before me in line, to make them believe. Its awe inspiring.

Before I started taking the technical stuff more seriously, I had a wee bridge camera and would just go on a road trip in my car and take pictures. Often if I couldn't sleep, I'd just get up and take my car for a run and see the colours and first light of the day and thought how great it was to see this rather than tossing and turning not being able to sleep. An odd way to find photography, but there it is.

I could literally spend a whole say just sitting here thinking about this, and probably end up with trying to capture PLACE... not any place, but the essence of PLACES.. NON-PLACES, constructed PLACES.....

I get where you are coming from, but I don't really have the brain power for it. I am not mocking the artistic approach, its just one I don't think I have. Maybe in later life I'd give the degree course a shot. Technically I am happy with my work and my approach, but a deeper, insightful approach, I cannot argue its a bad thing.

To answer a question, why go to a place? Why not go, its best to experience and see something yourself than to see someone elses images of it. Travel, road trips, hill walks etc are part of my life and in no way would I wish to change that.

 

[Pookeyhead]

All me and Stephen are doing really, is highlighting the differences between two different types of photography. Nothing more. All photography is brilliant at the end of the day (until the same subject is done to death.... then people get tired of looking at it obviously)... but it's interesting to understand the motivations behind photographs as much as it is to actually look at them.

 

[big soft moose]

I'm worried to find that I agree with steve - aside from weddings where the motivation is financial - I like to capture the beauty/majesty of the natural world and/or the interesting behaviour of wildlife/animals in general... I have zero interest in exploring feelings or using my photography as an artistic expression of an abstract concept. IMO this doesnt mean that my photography is not creative , just that the creativity is harnessed in composing and exposing to capture the beauty/majesty / interest of the subject.

My other forms of creative expression largely follow suit - carving wise i like to carve either green men (the pagan forest spirit not aliens) , celtic knot work, or forms of birds and animals (currently i'm working on a multipart sea monster). My intent is to create something which is attractive to look at and which either I or my freinds family would want to display as an ornament - abstract works which have to be explained don't interest me

Wood turning, likewise (indeed i often combine carving and turning in one project) - the object is to create a beautiful ornament that show cases the visual beauty and tactile quality of the wood - I do sometimes make abstracts but there isnt a deeper meaning behind them, they aren't intended to 'say' anything

and in my writing - I tend to write fiction , and my general motivation is exploring 'what if' scenarios inspired either by current affairs or by history (for example one thing in my ideas pile at the moment would be to write a story arround an updating of the viking lifestyle if it still persisted to the modern day ) In general style terms this is 'commercial fiction' , in the action adventure theme - the deeper 'art fiction' genre is of little interest - but this doesnt mean that writing 200 plus pages of blood and guts action while also creating relatable and 3 dimensional characters doesn't require considerable creativity.

 

[SFTPhotography]

but it's interesting to understand the motivations behind photographs as much as it is to actually look at them.

That's the crux of the thread...and what you I imagine teach and what I do

 

[Pookeyhead]

I'm worried to find that I agree with steve -

Why worried? I don't think anyone can say what's right or wrong... it's just interesting to work out WHY people take images sometimes. I have no problems with Stephen's images, or any other landscape taken just because it was a nice place. Only when you get a succession of photographers literally placing their tripods down in the same three dents left by the last photographer's tripod do I start to REALLY question whether the work is actually crap or not.

That's the crux of the thread...and what you I imagine teach and what I do

A part of it, yes.

 

[big soft moose]

Why worried? I don't think anyone can say what's right or wrong... it's just interesting to work out WHY people take images sometimes. I have no problems with Stephen's images, or any other landscape taken just because it was a nice place. Only when you get a succession of photographers literally placing their tripods down in the same three dents left by the last photographer's tripod do I start to REALLY question whether the work is actually crap or not.
.

i have no problem with it either and i'm not really worried it was a joke (base on the fact that steve and I are often at 180 deg)

that said even if people are shooting exactly the same shot done before its likely that their interpretation , settings, etc wll be different because the light and weather are diffeent so i wouldn't say something being done before makes it not creative if is a good shot

pretty much as i'm sure that someone has carved a multipart sea monster before - but the wood, exact cuts etc in mine will still be unique and require creativity to do

 

[steveo_mcg]

To what end?

Why not spend some time thinking about why you're even there. I know you like it... it's a nice place... all of that. But WHY? What IS the essence of that place.. why does it resonate with you? What would you have to do to capture the FEELINGS you get when you're there. Forget technical crap for a minute, or whether you use a Zeiss lens or not, or what aperture... get a bit poetic... spiritual... is it even the place you actually should be photographing? Sure... you have some nice shots of the place now, but what about that sense of place.. What IS it about PLACES that do this to us? What is a PLACE anyway?

I could literally spend a whole say just sitting here thinking about this, and probably end up with trying to capture PLACE... not any place, but the essence of PLACES.. NON-PLACES, constructed PLACES....


I'm getting that excited feeling I get when I feel a project coming on just contemplating it. None of this has got anything to do with photography. Ultimately, I'd probably use a camera to produce what I needed to produce.... but it's really not about photography. I'd go as far to say that the best photography isn't really anything to do with photography... just as the best paintings are not really about paint.

I am curious how you'd even begin to capture that kind of abstract, its not really something I've tried and wouldn't know where to start.

 

[SFTPhotography]

i have no problem with it either and i'm not really worried it was a joke (base on the fact that steve and I are often at 180 deg)

that said even if people are shooting exactly the same shot done before its likely that their interpretation , settings, etc wll be different because the light and weather are diffeent so i wouldn't say something being done before makes it not creative if is a good shot

pretty much as i'm sure that someone has carved a multipart sea monster before - but the wood, exact cuts etc in mine will still be unique and require creativity to do

Please tell me you're not building Nessie and coming up here...

 

[big soft moose]

Please tell me you're not building Nessie and coming up here...

Pah Nessie - have some originality man

 

[SFTPhotography]

Pah Nessie - have some originality man

Get the creativity out. Make it blue or orange. Greens been done here

 

[big soft moose]

I am curious how you'd even begin to capture that kind of abstract, its not really something I've tried and wouldn't know where to start.

My issue with a lot of 'creative' capturing of abstract, is that often it requires 3 or 4 pages of pretentious waffle to explain why the picture captures x concept - and imo if it requires that much explanation it hasnt essentialy captured anything - a picture is supposed to speak 1000 words, not require 1000 words to explain its greater meaning

 

[steveo_mcg]

My issue with a lot of 'creative' capturing of abstract, is that often it requires 3 or 4 pages of pretentious waffle to explain why the picture captures x concept - and imo if it requires that much explanation it hasnt essentialy captured anything - a picture is supposed to speak 1000 words, not require 1000 words to explain its greater meaning

The thousand words thing only really applies to journalism or the haynes manual though, what 1000 words does a landscape say? If a set of photos requires a small preface I don't really see an issue fair enough if it is actually a short story but then, as you say, the project has probably failed.

 

[Daryl]

Pete The moose said....

I like to capture the beauty/majesty of the natural world and/or the interesting behaviour of wildlife/animals in general...

This is pure art, Right place right time.....

 

[big soft moose]

The thousand words thing only really applies to journalism or the haynes manual though, what 1000 words does a landscape say? If a set of photos requires a small preface I don't really see an issue fair enough if it is actually a short story but then, as you say, the project has probably failed.

it would probably take a thousand words to describe the beauty of say the landscape steve posted above

 

[SFTPhotography]

it would probably take a thousand words to describe the beauty of say the landscape steve posted above

Try being there. Heaven on earth. All the bad stuff you feel, it just goes away when you take a moment in a place like that. Stop, breathe, take in the air, hear the sound of silence. Magical. Thank whoever for being alive.

Then get snapping

 

[Nod]

This is pure art, Right place right time.....

So that's why they usually keep 'em buried!

 

[big soft moose]

I know what you mean - coniston was similar .. or at least it was untill the well driving rig turned up and started driving a boreholefor the farm next door to brantwood - that reduced the ambience somewhat

 

[steveo_mcg]

it would probably take a thousand words to describe the beauty of say the landscape steve posted above

But what would it be saying? Any more than a few words to set a scene and you might as well start with "it was a dark and stormy night"....

 

[Steve Smith]

My issue with a lot of 'creative' capturing of abstract, is that often it requires 3 or 4 pages of pretentious waffle to explain why the picture captures x concept

http://www.artybollocks.com/

Steve.