Other photographers pictures

[big soft moose]

You brought up the subject of 'art' and after all the posts to the contrary you're still confusing your taste with worth. Your taste is irrelevant and this isn't an insult, but when it comes to art, your opinion isn't really worth much (just like mine). And whether even someone who is qualified likes it or not, is still irrelevant to it's value. If I want to see great photographs, I wouldn't go looking on Flickr, or 500 pixels or whatever, I'd visit a gallery.

but equally you are still conflating financial worth with cultural worth or basically whether an image is any good - just because something has a high monetary value does not in itself make it a good photo

 

[big soft moose]

someone whose artistic vision overrides the technical considerations or their skill/ability level

to be honest I've never seen an example of that on TP , if we are carefully talking around that bloody bird, I'd strongly disagree that he displayed any real artistic vision... imo that was an absolutely classic case of passing off lack of ability under the cloak of art

As for the second, I'm not sure if 'lots' of technically perfect but dull photos are criticised. A few maybe, but I don't see it happening often in the threads I look at.

Obviously I don't know what shots you look at - but I'll certainly mention it in every critique I give where its relevant. - although I'm talking about shjots that are actually boring , not shots where they are great but the artistic chaterati don't like them because its been done before (virtually everything has been done before)

 

[ghoti]

to be honest I'm surprised that won (although the various things competition judges do no longer surprise me - remember the year a shot of a gorilla in a zoo won the WPOTY ? - but you are way off on the not following compositional rules thing , it has a strong diagonal divide, key elements are on thirds and so forth.

to me that looks like a classic case of formulaic following of compositional rules without really thinking about what the overall vision is - in short an example of technically correct but boring

I think the vision is pretty clear. A stark view of post-industrial life in Inverclyde. It is, in fact, a scene that's representative of huge parts of Britain's landscape but you never see it represented in landscape photography, which is saturated with pretty but mind-numbingly cliched subjects like rolling hills, forests, coasts and mountains.

 

[MWHCVT]

Interesting just how fast and to such an extent this thread went off topic, I suspect and believe that the OP had no intention on discussing art but was more referring to the social/commercial end of the photographic genre e.g. The venture or weddings types of photography rather than the artistic end of the market

I do however find it interesting how some members whom do so defend the artistic section can be themselves quite derisory to some who make their own attempts at art

 

[big soft moose]

I think the vision is pretty clear. A stark view of post-industrial region (Inverclyde) that's fallen on hard times. It is, in fact, a scene that's representative of huge parts of Britain's landscape but you never see it represented in landscape photography, which is saturated with pretty but mind-numbingly cliched subjects like rolling hills, forests, coasts and mountains.

if that was the vision imo it fails to deliver it - it could be anywhere, and it doesn't adequate encapsulate hard times.

also complaining that landscape photography is saturated with natural landscapes, is like complaining that there are lots of models in portrait photography. Urban decay isn't an ignored subject by any means , but its covered extensively (to the point of cliché) in urbex and urban categories , its not represented significantly in landscape photography because it doesn't belong there

 

[big soft moose]

Interesting just how fast and to such an extent this thread went off topic, I suspect and believe that the OP had no intention on discussing art but was more referring to the social/commercial end of the photographic genre e.g. The venture or weddings types of photography rather than the artistic end of the market

that'll be because it couldn't be discussed intelligently without examples , but giving examples of non famous people work would have been contrary to the rules and got the thread locked on page 1

 

[droj]

All photography, with the arguable exception of technical imaging, is art.

Rubbish! An incompetent snapshot is a photograph but it isn't art. Equally, merely practicing a set of formulaic techniques to make an image doesn't make the result art ...

 

[Steve]

to be honest I've never seen an example of that on TP , if we are carefully talking around that bloody bird, I'd strongly disagree that he displayed any real artistic vision... imo that was an absolutely classic case of passing off lack of ability under the cloak of art



Obviously I don't know what shots you look at - but I'll certainly mention it in every critique I give where its relevant. - although I'm talking about shjots that are actually boring , not shots where they are great but the artistic chaterati don't like them because its been done before (virtually everything has been done before)

oooh...I must have missed birdgate ... will go and try to find it now

Saying a photo is a bit boring and lacks interest is not exactly criticising it for lacking artistic intent, as that comment could easily be applied to the photo in question here on the surface ignoring the artistic intention.

I don't know why its so hard to accept that in general forum members are more concerned with technical ability over artistic inventiveness. I'm not even criticising technical excellent but 'dull' photos. I love looking at technically excellent images, but accept them for what they are; eye candy with little artistic merit. They look beautiful but say nothing. And that's fine...I have plenty of photographs on my wall that fall into that category.

All I'm saying is that the aspiration of many seems to be to be purely technical excellence with little or no regard to artistic vision or comment. Not only that, there are people who seem to deride anything they don't like or understand with an art bashing hammer.

 

[MWHCVT]

oooh...I must have missed birdgate ... will go and try to find it now

You'll not find anything, it was a shameful time on the forum and time I'm ashamed to have been party too...but you'll not find it as it was such a bad time that it was virtually eradicated from view

 

[Solo man]

oooh...I must have missed birdgate ... will go and try to find it now

.

You won't find him here as everything was removed...he is on facebook however....

 

[Steve]

You'll not find anything, it was a shameful time on the forum and time I'm ashamed to have been party too...but you'll not find it as it was such a bad time that it was virtually eradicated from view

ah...ok. I genuinely didn't see the bird thread and didn't realise it was an unpleasant matter. I wasn't trying to be funny or clever or trying to inflame an old issue; I just didn't know about it.

 

[fracster]

ah...ok. I genuinely didn't see the bird thread and didn't realise it was an unpleasant matter. I wasn't trying to be funny or clever or trying to inflame an old issue; I just didn't know about it.

Steve, i`m assuming people are referring to a guy who posted shots of birds in landscape, the birds were small in the frame and over ridden by the land/city scape at times.

Some were very good, some not so much so.

 

[big soft moose]

They look beautiful but say nothing. And that's fine...I have plenty of photographs on my wall that fall into that category.
.

see that's another thing what's the obsession with art having to 'say something' why can't it be a representation of a view or whatever for its own sake ... as with a lot of old master portrait art which was purely a representation of whichever rich person had commissioned the art

 

[dean messenger]

But surely Dean that's the point. This thread was started as a discussion of commercial portrait photography that lacked evidence of basic technical ability. Far from what you turned it into.

You brought up the subject of 'art' and after all the posts to the contrary you're still confusing your taste with worth. Your taste is irrelevant and this isn't an insult, but when it comes to art, your opinion isn't really worth much (just like mine). And whether even someone who is qualified likes it or not, is still irrelevant to it's value. If I want to see great photographs, I wouldn't go looking on Flickr, or 500 pixels or whatever, I'd visit a gallery.

how did i bring up the subject of art.. i linked the worlds most expensive photograph as an example of a poorly executed photo.. not once did i state it was art and in fact i have said the opposite and stated several times i was referring entirely to the techncal aspect of the shot.. and in fact is has been other people who have jumped on the "but its art" bandwagon..
honestly if you havent the ability to read the thread correctly please dont misquote me.
as for taste and worth again.. moot points.. and again you clearly fail to see the comparison i was making from the ops original statement to what is at the end of the day just a photo and nothing more.
seems far easier on here to just bash at someone on here rather than to actually bother to read what they have said because you have failed to do so on several levels. art was clearly raised by others as an argument to justify the image in question and no i am not confusing taste with worth, in fact the opposite and have in fact clearly gave reasons for why i think its a bad photo on a technical level which has zero bearing on either taste or worth.

Snobbery seems to be a big issue too.. why would you not look on flickr if you wanted to see great photos? are you saying none are on there. or is it because they arent hanging in a gallery they are not worthy? a pretty judgemental comment dont you think of all the work on flickr?

 

[Steve]

see that's another thing what's the obsession with art having to 'say something' why can't it be a representation of a view or whatever for its own sake ... as with a lot of old master portrait art which was purely a representation of whichever rich person had commissioned the art

There is nothing wrong with photography as a representation, but is it really art? The majority of the photos I take fall into this category and those are the ones my Mum and Dad like. But they don't say anything interesting and as such I don't see them as art. Nothing wrong with that and happy to have them on my wall as eye candy.

Although don't totally agree with the old master analogy, as many of them contained clever symbolism about the subject to say something about their character or status. So not merely a representation as a physical likeness but sending a message about power, authority, wealth, piousness or whatever was wanted to be portrayed.

 

[simonblue]

For OP a few more you might to look at

Bruce Davidson
Eugene Richards
Sebastiao Salgado
Marc Riboud
Werner Bischof

 

[Phil V]

how did i bring up the subject of art.. i linked the worlds most expensive photograph as an example of a poorly executed photo.. not once did i state it was art and in fact i have said the opposite and stated several times i was referring entirely to the techncal aspect of the shot.. and in fact is has been other people who have jumped on the "but its art" bandwagon..
honestly if you havent the ability to read the thread correctly please dont misquote me.
as for taste and worth again.. moot points.. and again you clearly fail to see the comparison i was making from the ops original statement to what is at the end of the day just a photo and nothing more.
seems far easier on here to just bash at someone on here rather than to actually bother to read what they have said because you have failed to do so on several levels. art was clearly raised by others as an argument to justify the image in question and no i am not confusing taste with worth, in fact the opposite and have in fact clearly gave reasons for why i think its a bad photo on a technical level which has zero bearing on either taste or worth.

Snobbery seems to be a big issue too.. why would you not look on flickr if you wanted to see great photos? are you saying none are on there. or is it because they arent hanging in a gallery they are not worthy? a pretty judgemental comment dont you think of all the work on flickr?

But it's not 'poorly executed' at all is it, it's in focus, well exposed and is exactly the image the photographer set out to create. So the rest of that paragraph is what? Whether you like to admit it or not, you brought the 'art' into the thread, which was about the poor quality of social photography. You changed the agenda, not the people who responded to your post.

Snobbery? Really? Because I can't see the point in sifting through thousands of crap pictures of ducks in the hope that there'll be something worthwhile hidden amongst them? Because I can independently research quality work? Because I dare venture into a gallery? Because I can consciously not 'like' something that 50,000 others have liked and said 'nice shot', nah, I'm not a snob, I'm just an ordinary bloke who's prepared to buck a trend.

 

[dean messenger]

sorry but well exposed.. no offence but think you need to visit specsavers. and i reiterate i brought a photo into the thread. the only people calling it art are those defending it. if i wanted to bring art into it i would have posted a constable or turner picture

 

[Ed Sutton]

an art bashing hammer.

Oooh, that made me chuckle!

 

[Ed Sutton]

sorry but well exposed.. no offence but think you need to visit specsavers. and i reiterate i brought a photo into the thread. the only people calling it art are those defending it. if i wanted to bring art into it i would have posted a constable or turner picture

If you'd have posted a Constable or a Turner you'd have brought painting into the discussion.

You posted a picture of a photograph generally accepted to be an art photograph, sold in the art marketplace. How is that not bringing art into the debate?

 

[dean messenger]

generally accepted by who?
its still a photo, taken with a camera, ( or rather several photos ) stitched together and photo shopped to remove elements.
i never once called it art nor ever would. id call it a below average dull and uninteresting photo and nothing more.
Ironic how a photography forum will defend such a poor shot purely based on the who is yet will happily critique far better taken shots posted on here by its members and point out there flaws with ease yet defend something like this to the hilt.
if this image can so easily be accepted ( rose tinted glasses springs to mind ) then its a sad day for striving photographers worldwide who daily produce stunning shots than get no recognition because they arent "in with the right crowd"
guess i'll just stick with enjoying the works of Ian Ruhter and leave the "art" to the rest.

oh and as a side note.. saw the exceptional work by Don Mcullin at the imperial war museum and hes current landcape shots are a joy to view

 

[viv1969]

craft skills without intellectual skills lead to a boring concept, technically well executed (or in some cases the plagiarism of someonelse's nice concept, betrayed by a lack of originality)

By far the most profoundly ignorant comment in the thread.

 

[Ed Sutton]

guess i'll just stick with enjoying the works of Ian Ruhter and leave the "art" to the rest.

A name I wasn't familiar with, but who Google revealed I had read about. It looks like he's as prone to pretentious b******t as the rest of them!

 

[TheBigYin]

...Although don't totally agree with the old master analogy, as many of them contained clever symbolism about the subject to say something about their character or status. So not merely a representation as a physical likeness but sending a message about power, authority, wealth, piousness or whatever was wanted to be portrayed.

While I was researching a series of still life shots, I got sidetracked by just how much symbolism was actually worked into those style of paintings. Not only what Steve mentioned, but often there was a "hidden agenda" as well - Very often there would be a table in the background with that would be dismissed to the person comissioning the painting as "items of set dressing" or "A way to show off your wealth" (a kind of 16/17th century "bling" if you will) which only later would reveal all sorts of hidden messages - generally of the nature of "remember life is short" or "you can't take it with you"...

 

[Phil V]

sorry but well exposed.. no offence but think you need to visit specsavers. and i reiterate i brought a photo into the thread. the only people calling it art are those defending it. if i wanted to bring art into it i would have posted a constable or turner picture

This is a joke right?

You really think that picture is badly exposed? How do you ascertain that?

And Turner and Constable? They're the 'artists' that spring to mind? They produced 'art' but no photographer ever did? This is possibly the most bonkers post I've ever read here, and I've read a lot of loony stuff and am still haunted by the guy with the wife in stockings.

 

[big soft moose]

I wouldn't say its badly exposed per say its probably a perfect bell curve, although its a bit muddy and under saturated (which I suspect is down to the PP rather than the exposure)

 

[Steve]

While I was researching a series of still life shots, I got sidetracked by just how much symbolism was actually worked into those style of paintings. Not only what Steve mentioned, but often there was a "hidden agenda" as well - Very often there would be a table in the background with that would be dismissed to the person comissioning the painting as "items of set dressing" or "A way to show off your wealth" (a kind of 16/17th century "bling" if you will) which only later would reveal all sorts of hidden messages - generally of the nature of "remember life is short" or "you can't take it with you"...

Totally agree Mark. I've only scratched the surface of it, but its a fascinating area. A great starting point for anyone interested is something like The Ambassadors by Holbein. Have a look at the painting first and then find an explanation of the symbolism and its a joy to understand and see things that you may at first have missed.

 

[dean messenger]

This is a joke right?

You really think that picture is badly exposed? How do you ascertain that?

And Turner and Constable? They're the 'artists' that spring to mind? They produced 'art' but no photographer ever did? This is possibly the most bonkers post I've ever read here, and I've read a lot of loony stuff and am still haunted by the guy with the wife in stockings.

sheesh ive never known anyone to so totally misquote as you.. please put your brain into gear before you type.. where on this planet did i type "no photographer ever did".. maybe i need to explain to you paint by numbers style as you clearly have a total lack of grasp on anything being said.
so let me try again.. i said if i was going to post "ART" i would put up a tuner or constable ( no mention of photography there) . but as this is a PHOTOGRAPHY forum i posted a PHOTO instead ( NOT ART as you seem to be claiming.
AND yes the sky is poorly exposed, there is clear photoshop blurring in the bottom right corner and the colours are washed out. and if you cant see that then i suggest you change your optician.

 

[big soft moose]

sheesh ive never known anyone to so totally misquote as you.. please put your brain into gear before you type.. where on this planet did i type "no photographer ever did".. maybe i need to explain to you paint by numbers style as you clearly have a total lack of grasp on anything being said.
so let me try again.. i said if i was going to post "ART" i would put up a tuner or constable ( no mention of photography there) . but as this is a PHOTOGRAPHY forum i posted a PHOTO instead ( NOT ART as you seem to be claiming.
AND yes the sky is poorly exposed, there is clear photoshop blurring in the bottom right corner and the colours are washed out. and if you cant see that then i suggest you change your optician.

you aren't helping your case (which I broadly agree with in outline) by being so aggressive

that aside the sky isn't poor exposed per se ( I dropped a copy into photoshop and is indeed a near perfect curve on the histogram)- although I would have been tempted to use an ND grad to retain detal, he has clearly made a conscious decision not to as part of the minimalist conceptualism

 

[Cobra]

I've already posted once, about attacking the principle not the poster.
I won't post a 3rd time.

Play nice people.

 

[Phil V]

sheesh ive never known anyone to so totally misquote as you.. please put your brain into gear before you type.. where on this planet did i type "no photographer ever did".. maybe i need to explain to you paint by numbers style as you clearly have a total lack of grasp on anything being said.
so let me try again.. i said if i was going to post "ART" i would put up a tuner or constable ( no mention of photography there) . but as this is a PHOTOGRAPHY forum i posted a PHOTO instead ( NOT ART as you seem to be claiming.
AND yes the sky is poorly exposed, there is clear photoshop blurring in the bottom right corner and the colours are washed out. and if you cant see that then i suggest you change your optician.

Dean, firstly, stop with the personal crap. It's f*****g childish.
I never suggested I was saying you'd actually said that, you appear to be clinging to any shred of stuff I say rather than debate the point at hand, back to which;

No one else here is under any illusion that you introduced art into the thread. No one! You could have stuck with the original point and mentioned loads of crap local Facebook 'my name photography' pages, but instead you went for the 'art'. The fact you can't accept that it's art says everything about you and nothing about the photograph at all.

As for the photograph being underexposed and having 'clear photoshop blurring'. Have you seen the actual print? It's massive, and you're looking at a tiny file on the web, when I google images of it there are massive differences in the colour and tone and indeed resolution of the images I see, so how you can be certain how well it's exposed is beyond me. Unless you have seen the original, so - have you seen the original?

 

[big soft moose]

By far the most profoundly ignorant comment in the thread.

In what way ?

what do you think craft skills without accompanying intellectual skills would result in ?

 

[big soft moose]

The is it art or not argument isn't really a helpful one , because it depends on how you define art - at least one person on this thread has said that all photography is art , not a position I completely buy. whilst ive seen it said elsewhere that no photography is art (because it "doesn't have the same skill as painting or drawing") a position I definitely don't buy.

 

[dean messenger]

Dean, firstly, stop with the personal crap. It's f*****g childish.
I never suggested I was saying you'd actually said that, you appear to be clinging to any shred of stuff I say rather than debate the point at hand, back to which;

No one else here is under any illusion that you introduced art into the thread. No one! You could have stuck with the original point and mentioned loads of crap local Facebook 'my name photography' pages, but instead you went for the 'art'. The fact you can't accept that it's art says everything about you and nothing about the photograph at all.

As for the photograph being underexposed and having 'clear photoshop blurring'. Have you seen the actual print? It's massive, and you're looking at a tiny file on the web, when I google images of it there are massive differences in the colour and tone and indeed resolution of the images I see, so how you can be certain how well it's exposed is beyond me. Unless you have seen the original, so - have you seen the original?

i'll stop when you stop being a hypocrite. youve called me childish, ignorant etc . so whos the one doing the personal attacks??
. i quote "
Attacking the art establishment is fine, if you know what you're talking about, but attacking them from a position of ignorance is daft. And attacking them from a position of wilfull ignorance is a sign of stupidity.
"
pretty clear cut whos on the attack here , just because i stated my own personal opinion of the image what right does that give you to make the above remarks.


"No one else here is under any illusion that you introduced art into the thread. No one! You could have stuck with the original point and mentioned loads of crap local Facebook 'my name photography' pages, but instead you went for the 'art'. The fact you can't accept that it's art says everything about you and nothing about the photograph at all."

and youve done a survey asking every member that have you? pretty arrogant comment to assume you speak for the whole of the forum.
and the only person on about art is you , as a way to justify your support of a very under average picture.
and as yet you still have not being able to state one positve techincal aspect of the photo that counters my argument .
name one thing that makes this image special in any way shape or forrm?

actually dont bothere as you'll just go back to the ignorant and its art argument . its obvious that certain people are unable to debate without resorting to such comments.
maybe you need to look in the mirror next time you accuse someone of childish personal crap

 

[Cobra]

OK thats enough children.