Other photographers pictures

[Blasted]

I love looking at other photographers work. I hope to learn from them and be inspired to do more with my own photography, I love the challenge of trying to get to the same level. The more I look at new and old images the more I feel I develop a deeper understanding of the art and hopefully it allows me to understand what constitutes a great image.

Now I accept we all have to start somewhere and I accept I'm no better or worse than many others. I work hard at my hobby, I read books, ask questions, get out and try stuff, play on my computer (forums and editing) go to exhibitions and listen to talks. Base line is I put effort in.

But, and here comes the whinge. Do you ever look at another photographers pictures and think " what the f$%K is that, what on earth are you thinking and doing?"

In my eyes its criminal when they charge people money. I could never bring myself to charge money for something I wouldn't accept myself. My heart actually sinks when people respond by saying how amazing the pictures are. I've just looked at a (pro)photographers work on their FB page and its tipped me over the edge, I can't contain my feelings any longer, possibly the worst images I have ever seen, and there are loads of them.

Of course I would never be that blunt to a person in real life. I try and polity dodge giving an opinion, maybe offer a little advice, unless of course they are good in which case I will say so.

Maybe the fact everyone has a camera has distorted what people think is a good picture.

Rant over


Also if you want to recommend top photographers to check out, aside form the mainstream, please do.

 

[MWHCVT]

What you have to remember is that the general public e.g. A person with no interest in photography and see it purely as a record of a time, place or event, they more often either cannot tell the difference between a brilliant photo and an okay/crap photo. Or more likely the attachment to the memory it's recorded over rides any care on the quality of the image...

And there's always going to be people out there that see the money (headline figure) some photographers earn! we know that £1500 wedding is not actually £1500 drinking money for the photographer, and try to get in on that market even though they don't have the skills and often gear to be competitive on quality...it's a sad fact of life that those that don't see the quality difference will use these services as they are often a lot cheaper as the photographer thinks they're being some sort of Robin Hood charging much less than the quality photographer

Put basically try not to worry about it too much, your not going to be able to influence the majority of it so don't let it bother you

 

[Blasted]

I know what your saying and believe me I'm very tolerant of ability, but every once in a while I find someone who causes me to just stare blankly at my screen with my head slowly moving side to side uttering swear words. Deep down there I'm repressing an urge to beat them with their camera whilst explaining in no uncertain terms that what they are chucking out is so bad not even instagram will rescue it.

 

[Quicksnapper]

Could I ask .... How are you defining "bad"? What's "bad" to you is pure art to someone else... Surely this is a matter of perception.

 

[dean messenger]

worlds most expensive photograph

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images...21099439234/Rhein-II-by-Andreas-Gursk-001.jpg

$4,338,500... i wouldnt pay 50 pence for it!

dont think i need to say any more than that..

 

[Pookeyhead]

" what the f$%K is that, what on earth are you thinking and doing?"

Yep.. every time I see a stupid HDR image.

Also if you want to recommend top photographers to check out, aside form the mainstream, please do.

William Eggleston
Donovan Wylie
Alec Soth
Edward Burtinsky
Gary Winogrand
Horst P Horst
Tim Walker
Ruven Afanador
Nadav Kander


Just a fraction of my faves.

worlds most expensive photograph

$4,338,500... i wouldnt pay 50 pence for it!

dont think i need to say any more than that..

Oh FFS!!!.... not this blatant ignorance from the luddites again. No one paid that for it because of it's photographic worth.. not any more than someone who buys a priceless vase is buying a vase. They're buying prestige from collect-ability. They'd have bought almost any photo from him for stupendously high amounts of cash because they're collectors.... just as stamp collectors pay millions for certain stamps. The price is NOT a measure of the photos worth any more than the stamp. It's about rarity, and prestige.

however.... the above Gursky is better than anything you'll ever produce.

 

[Blasted]

Bad in this case covers a combination of lighting, composition, post processing, camera technique and direction. All these elements are done in such a way that its not been possible to fluke one decent image. Not only that but there are hundreds of images which are consistently bad. I keep going back and looking out of morbid curiosity.

Art I enjoy and even the art i don't like i can appreciate.

I feel better getting this out of my system.

 

[Blasted]

worlds most expensive photograph

$4,338,500... i wouldnt pay 50 pence for it!

dont think i need to say any more than that..

I actually like that image.

Yep.. every time I see a stupid HDR image.



William Eggleston
Donovan Wylie
Alec Soth
Edward Burtinsky
Gary Winogrand
Horst P Horst
Tim Walker
Ruven Afanador
Nadav Kander


Just a fraction of my faves.




Oh FFS!!!.... not this blatant ignorance from the luddites again.

Agreed with HDR. There is one chap I know who uses it and he must push all the sliders to 100% or something. I will check those peeps out, thanks.

 

[dean messenger]

Yep.. every time I see a stupid HDR image.



William Eggleston
Donovan Wylie
Alec Soth
Edward Burtinsky
Gary Winogrand
Horst P Horst
Tim Walker
Ruven Afanador
Nadav Kander


Just a fraction of my faves.




Oh FFS!!!.... not this blatant ignorance from the luddites again. No one paid that for it because of it's photographic worth.. not any more than someone who buys a priceless vase is buying a vase. They're buying prestige from collect-ability. They'd have bought almost any photo from him for stupendously high amounts of cash because they're collectors.... just as stamp collectors pay millions for certain stamps. The price is NOT a measure of the photos worth any more than the stamp. It's about rarity, and prestige.

however.... the above Gursky is better than anything you'll ever produce.

sorry but i totally resent that comment stating its better than anything i will ever produce. that quite frankly is insulting and total crap.
there is on a photographic level zero of merit to that photo, and is something a child could have taken with a £10 point and shoot.

and your accusation of ignorant luddites is also highly offensive.
i know damn well that some idiot with more money that sense has paid for the image purely on a collectors standpoint but that doesnt change the fact its a crap photo.

nor does it change the fact your comments are both insulting and offensive .

 

[MWHCVT]

Could I ask .... How are you defining "bad"? What's "bad" to you is pure art to someone else... Surely this is a matter of perception.

But most can agree that missed focus, poor exposure, poor colour control (white balance) etc are all on the whole core elements that actually in 99.999999% of cases there is a right and wrong, it's either OOF or in focus, it's correctly exposed or not, the colours are correct or they're not.. I can see what the OP is referring to

 

[Quicksnapper]

But most can agree that missed focus, poor exposure, poor colour control (white balance) etc are all on the whole core elements that actually in 99.999999% of cases there is a right and wrong, it's either OOF or in focus, it's correctly exposed or not, the colours are correct or they're not.. I can see what the OP is referring to

Yes, so can I, but OP doesn't say what's so "bad" about the images he dislikes. Clearly an image which is oof, poorly exposed etc is "bad" technically, but just to say that they're "the worst images I've ever seen" doesn't get to the heart of why they're so awful. If they're technically bad, then fair enough, but if they just don't appeal artistically, then that's a different matter.

OP, help us out here .... What's so bad about these images you rant about?

 

[MWHCVT]

Yes, so can I, but OP doesn't say what's so "bad" about the images he dislikes. Clearly an image which is oof, poorly exposed etc is "bad" technically, but just to say that they're "the worst images I've ever seen" doesn't get to the heart of why they're so awful. If they're technically bad, then fair enough, but if they just don't appeal artistically, then that's a different matter.

OP, help us out here .... What's so bad about these images you rant about?

Oh I agree artistically speaking is a totally different kettle of fish I think we all see stuff that is done for artistic intent that on a personal level we don't like...I remember one that I saw via Facebook a while back something like 99 "99s" round the UK coastline, with it being a series of photos of ice creams as a core part of a British beach holiday..now I didn't like it, nothing against the photos as there was nothing wrong with the photos it's just I don't see and ice cream as a core part of a British holiday as much as I do say fish and chips on the front, or a stick of rock...I mean I cannot think of any other country I've been to the few that I have where I've seen rock so for me that is a more quinticential symbol of a British beach holiday...

 

[Blasted]

OP, help us out here .... What's so bad about these images you rant about?

My dislike is nothing to do with the art side of it. They are just really really bad.

Composition - bad
Lighting - bad
what does the picture convey? - nothing apart from the discomfort of the subject
technique - bad
Exposure - massively out
Style - completely lacking

Its like the photographer researched every other photographer who ever did anything good and then created an image that doesn't share any similarity. You know when Les Dawson played the piano badly but was really a good piano player and the effect was funny, this isn't.

 

[Yv]

Oh FFS!!!.... not this blatant ignorance from the luddites again. No one paid that for it because of it's photographic worth.. not any more than someone who buys a priceless vase is buying a vase. They're buying prestige from collect-ability. They'd have bought almost any photo from him for stupendously high amounts of cash because they're collectors.... just as stamp collectors pay millions for certain stamps. The price is NOT a measure of the photos worth any more than the stamp. It's about rarity, and prestige.

however.... the above Gursky is better than anything you'll ever produce.

Lets tone it down just a little please David, not so personal, ta muchly.

 

[Byker28i]

sorry but i totally resent that comment stating its better than anything i will ever produce. that quite frankly is insulting and total crap.
there is on a photographic level zero of merit to that photo, and is something a child could have taken with a £10 point and shoot.

Nope it couldn't. It's actually got a fair bit of post processing applied to remove a power station and power lines.

 

[ghoti]

sorry but i totally resent that comment stating its better than anything i will ever produce. that quite frankly is insulting and total crap.
there is on a photographic level zero of merit to that photo, and is something a child could have taken with a £10 point and shoot.

and your accusation of ignorant luddites is also highly offensive.
i know damn well that some idiot with more money that sense has paid for the image purely on a collectors standpoint but that doesnt change the fact its a crap photo.

nor does it change the fact your comments are both insulting and offensive .

Why is it a crap photo? Critique it. Don't just say "Pah! Crap! A child could do better!". What's wrong with it? What do you think the photo is "about" and why hasn't it delivered?

 

[Cheese Scientist]

I'm far more annoyed by other photographers creating amazing photographs that I could never even aspire to.
Rubbish ones make me happy (unless they're mine, which they often are).

 

[boliston]

Oh I agree artistically speaking is a totally different kettle of fish I think we all see stuff that is done for artistic intent that on a personal level we don't like...I remember one that I saw via Facebook a while back something like 99 "99s" round the UK coastline, with it being a series of photos of ice creams as a core part of a British beach holiday..now I didn't like it, nothing against the photos as there was nothing wrong with the photos it's just I don't see and ice cream as a core part of a British holiday as much as I do say fish and chips on the front, or a stick of rock...I mean I cannot think of any other country I've been to the few that I have where I've seen rock so for me that is a more quinticential symbol of a British beach holiday...

Love Parr's "The last resort" photo series of the quintessential british seaside holiday https://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&ALID=2S5RYDYDHEB9

 

[MWHCVT]

Love Parr's "The last resort" photo series of the quintessential british seaside holiday https://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&ALID=2S5RYDYDHEB9

See that series I really do like

 

[ghoti]

Love Parr's "The last resort" photo series of the quintessential british seaside holiday https://www.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?VP3=SearchResult&ALID=2S5RYDYDHEB9

It came in for a lot of criticism - not entirely unfair criticism, in my opinion - for the fact that Parr was a very middle class photographer condescending to a working class world and documenting his subjects almost as a source of droll entertainment. They're certainly nice photographs that document a time and a place, but the criticism rings a little too true for me to be entirely comfortable with the work. It does seem a little like he is poking fun at his subjects, or at least that is certainly a way the work can be read.

 

[simonblue]

Here a few more i like,well worth a look

Trent Parke
Philip Jones Griffiths
William Albert Allard
Mary Ellen Marks

Could name a lot more

 

[simonblue]

It came in for a lot of criticism - not entirely unfair criticism, in my opinion - for the fact that Parr was a very middle class photographer condescending to a working class world and documenting his subjects almost as a source of droll entertainment. They're certainly nice photographs that document a time and a place, but the criticism rings a little too true for me to be entirely comfortable with the work. It does seem a little like he is poking fun at his subjects, or at least that is certainly a way the work can be read.

Its always a hard some of his work i do like,when he first joint Magnum Photo a lot of the criticism you pointed out above were voiced by by quite a few of the members,in the end he got in by one vote.

 

[Jayst84]

sorry but i totally resent that comment stating its better than anything i will ever produce. that quite frankly is insulting and total crap.
there is on a photographic level zero of merit to that photo, and is something a child could have taken with a £10 point and shoot.

You're a better artist than Gursky? Interesting assertion, though I admire your confidence.

...that doesnt change the fact its a crap photo.

nor does it change the fact your comments are both insulting and offensive .

You realise the irony there, right?

 

[Pookeyhead]

It came in for a lot of criticism - not entirely unfair criticism, in my opinion - for the fact that Parr was a very middle class photographer condescending to a working class world and documenting his subjects almost as a source of droll entertainment. They're certainly nice photographs that document a time and a place, but the criticism rings a little too true for me to be entirely comfortable with the work. It does seem a little like he is poking fun at his subjects, or at least that is certainly a way the work can be read.

He also produced a series in exactly the same vein as "The Last Resort" but with the rich as the subject in "Luxury"... and no one accused him of exploiting anyone then

Is he poking fun? (shrug)... Isn't that what we all do though? Hand up anyone in here who never makes fun of anyone... or actively dislikes certain people/types and makes no issue of saying so amongst their own peer group...... [tumbleweed].......


Talking of being typically British, it's typically British to HAVE the same views as Parr... just bad form to publicly admit it Just as it's fine for everyone in here to discuss and criticise another's work and call it crap/worth 50p or whatever.... no problem there.... but if the same is written about a forum member.... LOL

IMO anyone who embeds someone else's work and says its' worth 50p is opening themselves up for their own work to be examined and criticised quite closely. What happened to the rule that said we can't embed anyone else's work? Does that not apply once you achieve a certain level of notoriety? Nah... never mind that.... Pookey said a forum member's work is not as good as Gursky's..... we can't have that. I find that genuinely hilarious

 

[Pookeyhead]

sorry but i totally resent that comment stating its better than anything i will ever produce.

Why?


You EMBEDDED the work of someone else.... against forum rules.... then proceeded to give it a good panning. If you're not prepared to be challenged, then stop doing that. He may be famous, and he almost certainly doesn't give a damn, but the principle matters. You embed another;s work and tear it a new on publicly, then cry like a baby when someone suggests you are not as good as Adreas Gursky.

Can you see the issue here?

and your accusation of ignorant luddites is also highly offensive.
i know damn well that some idiot with more money that sense has paid for the image purely on a collectors standpoint but that doesnt change the fact its a crap photo.

In your limited opinion, yes... it might be. If I had embedded one of YOUR images, and said I thought it was crap, what would you do? Why do it to someone else?

nor does it change the fact your comments are both insulting and offensive .

I'm sure Andreas Gursky thinks the same about your comments. My advice is, don't dish out what you aren't prepared to take yourself.

If I bother you.... use the ignore button please... that's what it's there for - I certainly have no desire to speak to someone with such bigoted and narrow minded views about photography. Can I also suggest if you have opinions about other people's work you discuss it rationally by explaining why you think so, and promote a sensible, intellectual discussion about it instead of slagging it off if you aren't prepared to have someone respond with the same level of criticism.

There's a disturbing "them and us" attitude in these forums. Anyone who has achieved fame by producing challenging work is vilified (remember the Bailey/Queen portrait thread?), and everyone's cool with that, yet if anyone behaves in exactly the same way towards a forum member's work, you all circle the wagons and fight like cornered animals. Why? Why is there such animosity towards another photographer - someone who probably shares a great deal in common with you? Why do amateurs HATE so much? It wouldn't be so bad if it was just comments about a TYPE of photography, but you're actually naming an individual, and posting up his work... and embedding it... and THEN slagging it off. If I did that to you, I'd be banned from here.

You do realise it's for this reason a great many more serious photographers speak disparagingly about amateurs don't you? You're so full if p*ss and vinegar towards them, and constantly and publicly call their work crap. What else do you expect in return? Why else do you think so many have an intense dislike for the deluge of mediocrity you produce? This is exactly why I have no remorse when I slagged off HDR further up the thread - simply because amateurs like you just do nothing but slag off the work of anyone who decides photography is a fine art form and then act outraged when anyone DARES to do the same to you.

Reap what you sow.

Lets tone it down just a little please David, not so personal, ta muchly.

With all due respect (seriously) Yvonne... he embedded the artist's work for all to see, then slagged it off in the most cynical way possible against forum rules. If I had done that to another's work I'd be canned immediately.

Can we have some parity in the standards applied please? This entire thread is just an open invitation to slag off the work of others. You do realise that, yes? LOL

The irony is delicious.

 

[ghoti]

He also produced a series in exactly the same vein as "The Last Resort" but with the rich as the subject in "Luxury"... and no one accused him of exploiting anyone then

Well, the argument from a social justice perspective would be that he wasn't exploiting the rich because the rich are a privileged class. The power balance between Parr and the working class and Parr and the very wealthy is completely different. He can't, almost by definition, condescend to the rich, even if he is making fun of them. Condescension in its most technical definition means to cynically involve yourself with a group of people less privileged, less fortunate than you are.
I don't actually know if I agree with the criticism of Parr but I agree that it's a fair point to raise and that his work could be read as condescending.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Well, the argument from a social justice perspective would be that he wasn't exploiting the rich because the rich are a privileged class. The power balance between Parr and the working class and Parr and the very wealthy is completely different. He can't, almost by definition, condescend to the rich, even if he is making fun of them. Condescension in its most technical definition means to cynically involve yourself with a group of people less privileged, less fortunate than you are.
I don't actually know if I agree with the criticism of Parr but I agree that it's a fair point to raise and that his work could be read as condescending.

Class in this country often has nothing to do with money. He was representing their behaviour.. taste... etc. He did the same to the rich. It's just an anthropological study if you ask me.

You also suggest that being rich means you are immune to exploitation.

 

[Ed Sutton]

there is on a photographic level zero of merit to that photo, and is something a child could have taken with a £10 point and shoot.

Have a read up about the picture and how it was made.

Photographers outside the mainstream?

Tom Wood - check out his landscapes if you can
Stephen Gill
Jem Southam
Ken Grant
John Darwell
Anna Fox
Rhodri Jones
Melanie Friend
etc. etc.

I have very parochial preferences.

PS If you look at Parr's photos look at those of Tony Ray-Jones first.

 

[Stuart M]

At the risk of being labelled a luddite, I honestly think that I'd be thoroughly ashamed of myself if I even contemplated asking anyone to pay for this.
There's just nothing there ... it's a river, with some grass, and a footpath. The tale of the Emperor's new clothes is the first thing that came into my
head when I saw this.

It reminds me a lot of Rothko's work ... I've always thought that he was taking the p*ss as well

 

[dean messenger]

pookey you are talking totally out of your backside.. statting i slated the image.. when i actually orginally stated what i would be prepared to pay for it.. namely 50 pence is hardly slating it so i suggest you get your facts right before you start picking fights..
and that doesnt excuse your pathetic personal attack on me or my work. yet you try to justify it by trying to turn the tables on the fact embedded an image directly rather than a link ( an oversight on my side ). doesnt change the fact you are abusive and offensive.

 

[ghoti]

pookey you are talking totally out of your backside.. statting i slated the image.. when i actually orginally stated what i would be prepared to pay for it.. namely 50 pence is hardly slating it so i suggest you get your facts right before you start picking fights..

You said it was "crap".

 

[simon ess]

Might be worth checking what you said you would be prepared to pay for it.

$4,338,500... i wouldnt pay 50 pence for it!

dont think i need to say any more than that..

 

[dean messenger]

You said it was "crap".

which was stated several posts AFTER the attack on me. and from a photographic aspect it is in my view.
Putting aside all the highbrow artist nonsense if this image had been done by an unknown it would have been panned and binned. , colours are lifeless, no foreground interest, rule of thirds is unobserved entirely, sky is washed out and bland and its then been photoshopped to remove objects.
Yet it is justifed and accepted purely based on WHO the photographer is.
It has little to do with photography and everything to do with so called "art" in the same vein as tracy emmins unmade bed, or cindy shermans poorly over saturated instagram selfie.
or am i missing something here as i would love to know what redeeming features in the photograph make it a good photo?

 

[ghoti]

There's just nothing there ... it's a river, with some grass, and a footpath.

That's the whole point of the image. If you look at the image in context it's actually an extremely interesting photograph.
Worth millions? Depends on what you mean by "worth". If I had millions I wouldn't spend £3m on any photograph. But I can see the monetary value to a gallery of having a very interesting photograph that people would want to come and see in situ. I can see why a private investor might want to invest in the art and make money from selling it on in the future.

 

[dean messenger]

Might be worth checking what you said you would be prepared to pay for it.

that has nothing to do with quality and everything to do with taste. i wouldnt hang it on my wall if it was given to me as it has zero appeal.. plenty of exceptional photos out there have zero appeal to me as well but i can still appreciate them for there quality.
what i dont get is the constant obsession with the picture in terms of "art".. maybe im just to working class and just look at it with photographers eyes rather than be stuck in the art world mindset

 

[big soft moose]

end of the day there are two schools of thought on display here as to what makes a photograph 'good'

one says that a good photo has to be eye catching, beautiful, have the wow factor , display raw emotion or otherwise grab you

the other other says that it has to have meaning or be an expression of a concept or idea, frequently accompanied by an explanation of what that meaning is

neither is wrong per se as its a highly subjective area, but either camp calling the other names doesnt add a lot to the debate

Personally I fall into the first category and the picture under discussion does nothing for me - yes i can see that it creates some zones of strong graphic shape, but the light is dull and the subject matter is unintereting in my opinion.

This doesnt mean that I'm saying I'm "better" than Gurzky as i'm sure he's a genius at what he does, it is just that I have no interest in acheiving what he acheives (artistically i mean - obviously the money would be nice), my aspirations lie more towards producing work like Waite, Cornish and Rouse.

Also with regard to the need to "explain" art - if a photo (or other artistic installation) require a paragraph of text to explain it then imo the artist has failed, because if he was "really saying something" with his art, hthe message should come over through the medium concerned

 

[ghoti]

which was stated several posts AFTER the attack on me. and from a photographic aspect it is in my view.
Putting aside all the highbrow artist nonsense if this image had been done by an unknown it would have been panned and binned. , colours are lifeless, no foreground interest, rule of thirds is unobserved entirely, sky is washed out and bland and its then been photoshopped to remove objects.
Yet it is justifed and accepted purely based on WHO the photographer is.
It has little to do with photography and everything to do with so called "art" in the same vein as tracy emmins unmade bed, or cindy shermans poorly over saturated instagram selfie.
or am i missing something here as i would love to know what redeeming features in the photograph make it a good photo?

See, all the criteria you mentioned above are, in my opinion, a recipe for a dull photograph if that's all there is to it. Why are lifeless colours, no foreground interest, and, most amusingly of all, not observing the rule of thirds necessarily bad things? You're criticising the photo on an unsophisticated, painting-by-numbers level. Anyone who "pans and bins" an amateur solely and rigidly on those criteria is an idiot.
What the photo is about is a feature of a natural landscape - a river - which has in reality been transformed by industry and urbanisation, returned by the artist to its natural state - just a peaceful river. Maybe you need to spend the effort at looking at it in context before dismissing it as "crap".

 

[droj]

Following on from comments about some of Parr's work above, it may be hard to determine when a photographer is being exploitative. Perhaps photography can be partially exploitative and there can be a hybrid condition. If you point your camera at someone, are you objectifying them? If at a bird, are you objectifying it?

Tom Wood claims that he gives something back and I think that he does - there's a kind of cycle.

Photography can be celebratory and compassionate - also consider the work of the late James Ravilious.

 

[droj]

rule of thirds is unobserved entirely

Are you advocating a police state?

 

[big soft moose]

See, all the criteria you mentioned above are, in my opinion, a recipe for a dull photograph if that's all there is to it. Why are lifeless colours, no foreground interest, and, most amusingly of all, not observing the rule of thirds necessarily bad things? ".

they arent bad things per se if something else gives the picture interest - but imo in the picture in question there isnt any point of interest apart from the very basic linear construction , which doesnt hold my attention for more than a few seconds.