Other photographers pictures

Status
Not open for further replies.
Blasted said:
Do you ever look at another photographers pictures and think " what the f$%K is that, what on earth are you thinking and doing?"

.
Click to expand...

Only if I'm commenting on a qualification panel which falls woefully short of the basic standard required, and the applicant won't accept their shortcomings.

Otherwise, if they are making good money from their photography I have the utmost respect for them. In that sense I have no interest in how good or bad their pictures are - I will always admire a good business person. If their clients are happy to pay for the work then that is all that matters at the end of the day. I don't see the point of getting annoyed by it.
 
dean messenger said:
Putting aside all the highbrow artist nonsense if this image had been done by an unknown it would have been panned and binned.
Click to expand...

Why would it? YOU might have binned it, but you're assuming that all "unknown" artist would produce work like yours, and not Gursky's Why?


dean messenger said:
, colours are lifeless,
Click to expand...
Where's the rule that says colour has to be saturated?

dean messenger said:
no foreground interest,
Click to expand...
All photographs need foreground interest?

dean messenger said:
rule of thirds is unobserved entirely
Click to expand...
Does it need to be obeyed rigidly?

dean messenger said:
, sky is washed out and bland
Click to expand...
Oh yeah.. I forgot.. only great photographs are taking when there's an interesting, or blue sky.. silly me.

dean messenger said:
and its then been photoshopped to remove objects.
Click to expand...
So?


If all your images obey these rules rigidly, would that not make them a bit dull?

dean messenger said:
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
Click to expand...

Yes.. you're missing something LOL

Why "so called" art? Oh yeah... if it ain't pretty, or loaded with crass, exaggerated evidence of "craft" then it's not art. Instead of slagging it off.. why not (seeing as you're dead set on disobeying forum rules) embed some examples of imagery you feel is superior so we can get some context here. I (and others) have no idea what you feel would be more worthy of praise... so show us.
 
big soft moose said:
As i said before if it has to be explained then the artist hasnt succeded in comunicating the ethos
Click to expand...


As I said before in another thread... show Rembrandt's Night Watch to someone who's never seen it before, and they would not be able to explain what it was about unless they read about the painting or knew about Dutch History. Has Rembrandt failed therefore? Is it therefore not art?
 
maybe you should obey forum rules yourself regarding courtesy or do you insist on picking arguments just for the hell of it. ive gave the reasons above why i think its rubbish . all of which are pretty standard requirements for most photography but clearly you consider yourself above the basic rules and principles of that and instead resort to the lowest base of abuse and insults..
have a good evening with your continued trolling because you clearly arent someone whos worth debating reasonably with.

and if your going to quote rules try reading them yourself
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/resources/rules-summary.1/

nothing there about posting direct images either but plenty about manners and politeness
 
Last edited:
Oh dear....! I adore these discussions. I agree with Pookey. Nothing says a photo HAS to be in focus, on thirds, saturated colour etc etc etc. Its art. Therefore its meant to divide opinion. If you don't like it then cool, but slagging it off as 'crap' is merely your opinion. You are entitled to it but it doesn't make it right.

Personally I am experimenting with deliberately out of focus urban shots - does that automatically mean my ideas are 'crap'. I accept to some they will be, but I'm not aiming my work at them, I am aiming at those who care to look deeper. I accept they will be fewer in number but that doesn't bother me.

I once sold a framed print to a company that 'accidentally' saw an image I took that I wasn't putting up for their choice. I explained its faults but they insisted and wanted to pay for it. I got an extremely handsome payment and they were overjoyed with the end product. I did feel a little uncomfortable when i was hanging the image in their office but i decided it is their choice, who am I to tell them it was 'crap'?

Dean, manners and politeness should also be extended to other peoples work? Maybe moreso if they aren't able to defend themselves on a forum such as this?
 
[quote="dean messenger, post: 6340215,]ive gave the reasons above why i think its rubbish . all of which are pretty standard requirements for most photography but clearly you consider yourself above the basic rules and principles of that ...[/quote]

They aren't mandatory you know, just some ideas, guidelines and often things are more interesting when these 'rules' aren't obeyed.
 
I have no idea why I agree with Pookey on these occasions:
Working class - check
No artistic training- check
No academic qualification - check
Shoots knowingly 'formulaic' shots for profit - check

You'd think I was a shoe in to join the 'emperors new clothes' [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER].

So, why do I side with the academics rather than the wilfully ignorant? Ah, because my dad insisted we were brought up wilfully open minded. Brought up never to assume the obvious and to question everything.

So anyone who's opinion of another's work can't stretch beyond 'crap' gets automatic ridicule, because they're not bright enough to see the difference between value and taste. Not liking something and not appreciating it are not related. We always fall to the obvious stuff, that Gursky image does nothing for me, but then neither do the blingy landscapes of Joe Cornish. But I still see the value, I can appreciate why others might like them. It doesn't matter whether I like them, they're not 'crap'.

If I spend a day in the Tate modern, I'll dislike 80% of the exhibits! but love about 10%, so why would I go back? To ask the question, because studying is more fun than dismissing.
 
Pookeyhead said:
stuff
Click to expand...
dean messenger said:
more stuff
Click to expand...

Its a great shame that the two of you need get so heated - so David thinks that Gursky is the best thing since sliced bread while Dean feels that its not something he'd give house room

Neither of you is right or wrong - its just a matter of opinion , so why not just accept that people can honourably hold differing opinions and move on - calling each other names adds little to the debate.

Personally Gursky's work is not to my taste and my opinion errs more towards deans position - not that I necessarily believe that all good pictures have to be pretty , but as I said above I do believe that a work that seeks to communicate a message should do so through its visual impact , not through a heap of accompanying verbage and interpretation. as Gursky's shot fails that criterion (in my opinion) its not something I'd want to put on my wall , even if I had £4M going begging.

That said there are many photos I'd consider good which I wouldn't put on my walls - the napalm girl being a classic case - but that shot while breaking most 'rules' still has power and impact, and clearly communicates a message about what was happening in Vietnam and the indifference of the troops to the little girl and so forth ... it doesn't require a load of words and critical interpretation to understand.
 
Few things are as entertaining as watching pooks go off on one :lol:
 
viv1969 said:
Few things are as entertaining as watching pooks go off on one :LOL:
Click to expand...

I'm pleased we have such individuals with both the knowledge and passion for photography who are capable of eloquently and clearly explaining and justifying an opinion. And I can fully understand the frustration they must feel after offering a detailed and reasoned view only to be met with the reply 'it's crap'
 
seems a number of you are blind to the fact that my first comment on the image said no such thing and i merely pointed out i wouldnt pay 50 pence for it , and was then abused and insulted for that comment.
and as yet ive still not seen one person actually quote any redeeming features in the image itself instead its been the same old argument in regard to "art" and the so called story behind the image.
even when i stated my opinion on the image being bland, washed out and overexposed people still defended it yet still no one has stated why its a good image.. i guess that in itself speaks volumes in that no one can actually say as a photograph its any good
but as per normal it boils down to the only comeback being accusations of myopic ignorance and idiocy with comments aimed towards me all of which are personal attacks on me rather than to actually respond with a valid reason as to why its not "crap"
the only thing that gives the image any value is the name behind it. he could just as easily taken a photo of dog poo and then made up some cock and ball story that it represented some valid metahpor purely to give credence to a "crap" image and sell it for millions.
And im sure hes highly unlikely to be offended if people called hes photo the worst they had ever seen as hes walking around with a 6 figure bank account so probably doesnt really care if people like it or not.
 
big soft moose said:
Its a great shame that the two of you need get so heated - so David thinks that Gursky is the best thing since sliced bread
Click to expand...


Actually... I don't :) I just can't imagine why anyone would say he's crap.. or, to be pedantically correct here... worth 50p. I like his work, but he's never been someone who has consciously influenced me. There are MUCH better photographers out there... but he's FAR from crap, and I admire his work.


big soft moose said:
while Dean feels that its not something he'd give house room
Click to expand...

There's the problem: Judging work by whether you want it on your wall. That's simply not how art is judged. I wouldn't want it on my wall either. In fact, most of the photographs I admire I wouldn't want on my wall.


big soft moose said:
Neither of you is right or wrong - its just a matter of opinion , so why not just accept that people can honourably hold differing opinions and move on - calling each other names adds little to the debate.
Click to expand...

Because if I posted up images of birds on twigs, aeroplanes taking off, babies in baskets etc.... and started a thread on how crap they are... well, you can imagine what would happen. I accept such photography has it's place, use and clients who happily buy it, which is why I don't bang on about it (except eye watering HDR.. which genuinely is baffling). What gets me riled is the amateur habit of "Look how crap this is... I can't believe people buy this rubbish" attitude towards anything they don't understand. The evangelistic pounding of this drum just gets wearisome. It genuinely is reverse snobbery in it's worst incarnation.

In essence, I agree with you completely. Some people like photography as art, some don't. I just wish people would consider that "like" doesn't not equal "worth". People don't invest large sums of cash in art because they like it, they do so as an investment. People don't invest money in businesses because they "like" them either, they do so because they see a return on their investment one day. It's the same thing. The art is immaterial as an artefact. I don't respect Gursky BECAUSE he sells work for millions, but people invest millions in him because people like me like it. Why can't people see that? So the price of a Gursky is pretty irrelevant to this debate.


big soft moose said:
Personally Gursky's work is not to my taste and my opinion errs more towards deans position - not that I necessarily believe that all good pictures have to be pretty , but as I said above I do believe that a work that seeks to communicate a message should do so through its visual impact , not through a heap of accompanying verbage and interpretation. as Gursky's shot fails that criterion (in my opinion) its not something I'd want to put on my wall , even if I had £4M going begging.
Click to expand...

It's really simple. A man was obsessed with capturing a view of the Rhein. He couldn't because all this stuff was getting in the way. So he removed it in order to capture the real essence of the scene his imagination saw. Simple as that. There is no verbage. Concept.. solution... statement. Quite simple. How is that of less value than a baby in a basket?
 
Last edited:
dean messenger said:
...
but as per normal it boils down to the only comeback being accusations of myopic ignorance and idiocy with comments aimed towards me all of which are personal attacks on me rather than to actually respond with a valid reason as to why its not "crap"
the only thing that gives the image any value is the name behind it. he could just as easily taken a photo of dog poo and then made up some cock and ball story that it represented some valid metahpor purely to give credence to a "crap" image and sell it for millions.
And im sure hes highly unlikely to be offended if people called hes photo the worst they had ever seen as hes walking around with a 6 figure bank account so probably doesnt really care if people like it or not.
Click to expand...

I'm going to simply add, I see willfull ignorance as a personal failing, but the wilfully ignorant wear it as a badge of honour. I'd suggest that if you are genuinely offended by me calling you wilfully ignorant, then you're either just pretending to be in order to spark a debate, or your feeling insulted is simply a pretence to score points.

Much as I dislike myself for accepting this; what gives that image 'value' is the market, the same thing that's reduced the value of my work over the last few years. Something is 'worth' what the market says, I can no more argue with the result than I can argue that we'd have been better off if we'd continued worshipping the sun.

See the thread in business recently about flash watches? I can see the attraction, but they do absolutely nothing for me. But it'd be crass to just describe an expensive watch as 'not worth 50p' just because I don't want one. They're worth what the market commands.

Speaking of crass, to suggest that another human being doesn't deserve your respect simply because they have millions in the bank. Really? Is that really how you feel, do you honestly believe it's ok to insult someone you're unlikely to meet just because they're rich? Just wow!
 
Last edited:
I'll defend the aesthetics of the Gursky. I liken it, and images similar to it such as (perhaps) Rothko paintings, to ambient music. You can't dance to ambient, it won't get to the top of the charts, something without much apparent substance which through prolonged contemplation, reveals more than is initially imagined. Pictures don't have to be obvious, have clear subjects, 'great' light, and all the other tropes of populist photography to be any good and worth looking at.

dean messenger said:
he could just as easily taken a photo of dog poo...
Click to expand...

Been done. It hasn't sold for millions but it's a photograph (series actually) made by a real artist (and a good photographer).
 
dean messenger said:
maybe you should obey forum rules yourself regarding courtesy or do you insist on picking arguments just for the hell of it. ive gave the reasons above why i think its rubbish . all of which are pretty standard requirements for most photography
Click to expand...
They're not "standard requirements". They're rules of thumb to help outright beginners or people chronically unable to think for themselves to take pretty pictures.
 
Dean didn't say he didn't respect Gursky because he has millions in the bank. He suggested that Gursky is unlikely to care if one person personally finds his image of little value. That's not the same thing at all.
 
How often have some of us here done a client viewing session and been utterly amazed at the photographs the client has chosen? Do customers choose the most technically competent images or do they simply choose the ones they like, according to their own aesthetic and their own level of understanding? In my experience it's the latter - few will care about the technicalities, or the errors which a competent photographer could immediately spot. Then there are the many subjective differences in opinion which are inextricably tied to personality and in many cases upbringing, or at least the extent to which the buyer has been exposed to the medium. I personally wouldn't buy the Gursky photo because it does nothing for me (I neither like it nor dislike it) but if he can sell it for a fortune then I'm well impressed - there is hope for us all. Mind you, looking at that path there seems to have been some slightly heavy-handed cloning going on (though I could be wrong). But that isn't going to matter to the person who wants the picture - who may in all seriousness enjoy the kudos of being a philanthropist or art collector. Each to their own. What does bother me however is any insistence that a piece of work is 'crap' because it doesn't appeal to that person - there needs to be an acknowledgement that one person's drivel is another person's gold, and one viewpoint is no less valid then the next when we're talking about a medium as subjective as art (technical and creative appraisal of a photograph in a photography competition or distinction panel is going to be critiqued in a very different way, but that is another conversation - and this is where part of this discussion is becoming confused).
 
viv1969 said:
Dean didn't say he didn't respect Gursky because he has millions in the bank. He suggested that Gursky is unlikely to care if one person personally finds his image of little value. That's not the same thing at all.
Click to expand...
Ruth really? Are you suggesting you can feel the respect for Gursky pouring from Dean?

The OP was bemoaning local low quality 'pro' photographers, as in crap portraits for £50. Dean broadened the debate to high value art, without an agenda, he just happened to mention it in passing?

You're suggesting that it's as simple as whether Gursky would care what Dean thinks? Of course he wouldn't, but it's not because the artist is rich, which the critic seems to think is germane, it's because the critic has nothing of value on which to base his opinion, if we are even to accept 'it's crap' as an opinion.
 
And what's always assumed, is that Gursky has the millions this print sold for. When he in fact sold it to the guy who sold it to the gallery that sold it for millions. We don't really know what the artist earned, but that's the market for you.;)
 
ghoti said:
They're not "standard requirements". They're rules of thumb to help outright beginners or people chronically unable to think for themselves to take pretty pictures.
Click to expand...

se that kind of dismissive language does nothing to further the debate - things like thirds/ golden ratio etc are not just for beginners or those unable to think for themselves, many great photographers work shows clear compositional use of such principals. For example the adams shot I posted earlier has most of its key elements on third points ... are we saying Ansel Adams was a formulaic photographer unable to think for himself ?

Now I'm not saying that shots have to be on thirds - rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools - but there does seem to be a counter rule developing in some quarters (and I'm not referring to the Gursky shot here) that a shot that doesn't adhere to the various traditional compositional guidance is automatically a sign of compositional brilliance and individuality which is simply not true.

IMO a good photographer composes his shot to have power / impact/ or to communicate whatever concept he is trying to convey - he may follow the rule of thirds or whatever, or he may consciously disregard it, but either way the shot should speak for itself.

End of the day there is a marked difference between 'thinking for yourself' and following a trend set by others either to adhere to traditional rules or to dismiss them
 
Lindsay D said:
What does bother me however is any insistence that a piece of work is 'crap' because it doesn't appeal to that person - there needs to be an acknowledgement that one person's drivel is another person's gold, and one viewpoint is no less valid then the next when we're talking about a medium as subjective as art .
Click to expand...

As ever Lindsay speaks sense , though both sides of the debate are guilty of not acknowledging the validity of the others view - it also being true that one persons gold is another persons drivel , and the blind insistence that some have made that the Gurzky shot is brilliant (as a fact rather than an opinion and anyone who disagrees must be wrong) is equally blinkered as insisting it is crap.

the declaration (as made by the unlamented gortch) that " I am right and everyone who disagrees with me is wrong" is very rarely a fair and objective assessment of the truth of the situation in this kind of subject, regardless of the standpoint of the person who makes it
 
David it's going to be hard for you to maintain the high ground when you resort to calling other members idiots. No matter how much the contributors here will disagree with each other, or use inappropriate terminology, there are better ways of responding. You can't change how someone else feels, nor will you necessarily have any right to - but I would always advise against stooping to personal insults because when you reach that point you will lose the argument you have taken so much time to put forward.
 
big soft moose said:
se that kind of dismissive language does nothing to further the debate - things like thirds/ golden ratio etc are not just for beginners or those unable to think for themselves, many great photographers work shows clear compositional use of such principals. For example the adams shot I posted earlier has most of its key elements on third points ... are we saying Ansel Adams was a formulaic photographer unable to think for himself ?

Now I'm not saying that shots have to be on thirds - rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools - but there does seem to be a counter rule developing in some quarters (and I'm not referring to the Gursky shot here) that a shot that doesn't adhere to the various traditional compositional guidance is automatically a sign of compositional brilliance and individuality which is simply not true.

IMO a good photographer composes his shot to have power / impact/ or to communicate whatever concept he is trying to convey - he may follow the rule of thirds or whatever, or he may consciously disregard it, but either way the shot should speak for itself.

End of the day there is a marked difference between 'thinking for yourself' and following a trend set by others either to adhere to traditional rules or to dismiss them
Click to expand...
Your last paragraph nails it.
Sure, rule of thirds, vibrant colours etc have their place and they are useful, if crude, guidelines for popular photography.
But the reason the rule of thirds (for example) is useful is because in many situations it helps to provide balance in an image. Good photographers understand that balance is what they are going for (if, indeed, they want to make a balanced image) rather than thinking "is everything on thirds". I'll bet Adams thought in terms of compositional balance and used rule of thirds as and when appropriate to help with that compositional balance. That's thinking for yourself. Just saying "rule of thirds is a standard requirement for photography" is not thinking for yourself.
It's no more a rule than the stuff about how you need a bell shaped histogram with the majority of the pixels in the midtones that you read in books for outright beginners.
 
Pookeyhead said:
It's really simple. A man was obsessed with capturing a view of the Rhein. He couldn't because all this stuff was getting in the way. So he removed it in order to capture the real essence of the scene his imagination saw. Simple as that. There is no verbage. Concept.. solution... statement. Quite simple. How is that of less value than a baby in a basket?
Click to expand...

but he hasn't effectively removed the stuff that was getting in the way... which is where the execution falls down for me... the river is still a canalised and industrial landscape , so photoshoping out the factory hasn't really removed the industrial context if that was the intent.

That said I don't agree with dean's assertion about Gurzky's motives - I have no doubt that he genuinely believes in what he was doing rather than being a charlatan "making up a cock and bull story"

as to the value - personally I don't believe any photo is worth £4M - particularly not one which could be replicated rather than one capturing an unrepeatable moment - but if someone is willing to pay that much good luck to him
 
Phil V said:
See the thread in business recently about flash watches? I can see the attraction, but they do absolutely nothing for me. But it'd be crass to just describe an expensive watch as 'not worth 50p' just because I don't want one. They're worth what the market commands.
Click to expand...

to be fair "I wouldn't pay 50p for it" isn't the same as "its not worth 50p " - For example having previously owned one I wouldn't give you 50p for a Peugeot partner van, but I clearly accept that the market determines that they are "worth" about £8k

likewise with the Gursky shot - I personally wouldn't pay 50p for it (well I would, but only so I could then sell it for £4M :LOL: ) but that is a measure of its worth to me, not its intrinsic worth to the market.

I do struggle with how the market can feel that any photo is worth as much as £4M but that's a different discussion
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
I do struggle with how the market can feel that any photo is worth as much as £4M but that's a different discussion
Click to expand...

I feel that way about many pieces of 'art' Pete! I have struggled to understand why a person might pay a fortune for a pile of crates, or a dirty unmade bed, but they do and I often wonder about the psychology behind it. The whole thing is fascinating and demonstrates the diversity of human taste and opinion.
 
big soft moose said:
I do struggle with how the market can feel that any photo is worth as much as £4M but that's a different discussion
Click to expand...
Nobody thinks it has four million pounds' worth of value as a picture they're going to hang on their living room wall or anything like that.
It has value to, say, a gallery because lots of people might want to come to see it. It may well be worth £4m in that sense. Or it may be worth £4m to an investor because its value to a gallery means it can possibly be sold on later for profit.
 
I love how folks make it up as they go along. He didn't state it's crap.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Ban incoming.... later dudes. Worth it though.
Click to expand...
Yes you realised that you overstepped the mark that time.
Attack the principle by all means.
but quit with the personal attacks / remarks.
They are becoming too frequent.
 
but if you were buying investment art - wouldn't you be better of with something with an established value , like an old master. The trouble with the I bought it for £4M so therefore its worth £4M approach is that one day someone realises that actually it has no inherent value and you've basically lost your cash.

when you look at the gurzky shot objectively - there's nothing there that couldn't be replicated by most members here (apart from possibly the vision to take the shot in the first place) its not technically difficult , there's no amazing skill involved , there's not even an amazing weather condition that would be hard to reproduce - its just a grey day on the rhine and a little bit of time spent in PP

so the only thing that lends it value is that Gurzky is a name photographer (unlike for example baileys shot of the queen - which I don't like either , but which would require both strong photographic skills and special access to reproduce) - so give it ten, twenty, fifty whatever years and he's fallen out of vogue and you've not got an asset worth £4M - in fact you'd be lucky if it was worth anything at all (the same applies to unmade beds, 9 crates, half a cow in formaldehyde etc)
 
big soft moose said:
to be fair "I wouldn't pay 50p for it" is the same as "its not worth 50p " - For example having previously owned one I wouldn't give you 50p for a Peugeot partner van, but I clearly accept that the market determines that they are "worth" about £8k
Click to expand...

arse - I meant to type isn't the same
 
Pookeyhead said:
Because if I posted up images of birds on twigs, aeroplanes taking off, babies in baskets etc.... and started a thread on how crap they are... well, you can imagine what would happen. I accept such photography has it's place, use and clients who happily buy it, which is why I don't bang on about it (except eye watering HDR.. which genuinely is baffling). What gets me riled is the amateur habit of "Look how crap this is... I can't believe people buy this rubbish" attitude towards anything they don't understand. The evangelistic pounding of this drum just gets wearisome. It genuinely is reverse snobbery in it's worst incarnation.
Click to expand...

sometimes it is, and sometimes its because people are sick of all 'oh isn't it wonderful dahhhling' dross that gets talked about certain forms of 'art' - piling four tea bags on top of one another is not (imo) art - because it requires the skill of a four year old, and only becomes 'art' because people say it is (until the cleaners mistake the 'installation' for a rubbish and take it away)

The shot under discussion is a bit like the photographic equivalent of that - creating that shot would require only basic photographic and photoshop skills - you could do it easily and so could I (as could 99% of the forum) - so what makes it 'art' apart from Gurzky's name and the chatterati insistence that it is ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top