Up-and-coming photographers (BBC)

A couple of keepers, the rest straight in the bin.


I like a story behind a picture and to know what the artist was trying to portray, but, when people use the story alone without any decent art to back it up, it's just a waste of time.

It's not fair to say, exposure ... wrong, composition ... wrong, ISO ... wrong, but it is fair to say when the picture is quite frankly, a waste of time (sob story or not). You can't just take expect everyone to like your pictures because it was your deceased relatives favourite bench.


Also has anyone bothered to click the link underneath?

http://www.csm2009photography.com/ <----------

Here you will find the complete sets. After looking through, a few where better than those shown on the BBC site but most were, to me, pretentious rubbish.
 
Arkady said:
Does anyone else here think there's only two kinds of photograph?
The ones that make you think "I wish I'd taken that!"
...and the ones that make you think "I could do better than that!"

...and no middle ground...
Click to expand...

Not really, there are some fantastic shots that impress me, and I'm glad someone had the time and patience to get these great shot, because had it been up to me, I would not have been bothered :lol:
 
Intersting thread but photography is an art.
We learn to become critics as our skills improve but the general public don't seem to see it the same way.
I've had some fantastic comments on some of my photos that I've thought were nothing more than average by people who are not into photography.

I'm not awe stuck by any of the photos but I quite like a couple.
Before I got into photography I wonder if more of them would have appealed to me.
 
You are a tough bunch to please. Some of those sets are amazing in my opinion. Perhaps you *could* do better, but then you didn't. You didn't have an idea (sometimes a good one) and then go out and shoot a set of photos on that idea. Us amateurs really struggle at this I think, we might take nice, aesthetically pleasing photos of the events and places that make up our lives, but we fail to photograph ideas and concepts.

Clarisse d'Arcimoles' set in particular where she recreates old photos of her family members is fantastic.
 
No doubt that most of the shots aren't technically great photographs, but they're more arty than photographic, if that makes sense?

Most of them aren't to my taste, but everyone has different tastes!

I do a bit of promo stuff for bands, and often find that coming up with an original idea is more difficult than actually taking the photograph!
 
grey.squirrel said:
Also has anyone bothered to click the link underneath?

http://www.csm2009photography.com/ <----------

Here you will find the complete sets. After looking through, a few where better than those shown on the BBC site but most were, to me, pretentious rubbish.
Click to expand...

Thanks for all your comments! Seems that people seems to be split between 'they are technically rubbish' and 'the concepts are great. Or thereabouts.

I deffinately think its work looking at the full collection - gives you a much better idea of the consept and what the photographer is trying to get at.
 
mustanir said:
Clarisse d'Arcimoles' set in particular where she recreates old photos of her family members is fantastic.
Click to expand...

I actually love that idea, but she's not nailed the post processing for me - they don't look quite right if you know what I mean?? :thinking::)
 
I've not had chance yet to look through most of them, had a quick look at the CSM link though.

The first thing that hit me, is the insane gallery design: click and hold to view a photo? What the hell?

I'd bet a fair amount that if Annelaure Pothin's pics were posted up on TP, 90% of the forum would come out in gushing praise..
 
Not reading the whole thread here but I think a lot of people here underestimate the time and effort put into a whole concept. Those photographs are just the end result of a huge thought process. Photography is just not all about technical ability and I think a lot of people on here who shoot the standard birds and motor sports events just don't understand that side of photography.

It actually reflects the poor concept and value of the users of this forum which in my opinion surfaces in many meaningless photographs taken by users here (and yes, I do mean birds and bikes going round a circuit).

However, I do think that those, or any photograph on the link are meaningless if one is not prepared (or given the chance) to engage with the subject on a deeper level. There is not much text about the photographs provided which is not helpful and provokes reactions like those shown on here.

Central St. Martin's is amongst the world's finest Universities and encourage great talents and definitely hard to get in, so I would say that you have to engage more to understand the context.

Flame on :)
 
bakedbeans said:
Not reading the whole thread here but I think a lot of people here underestimate the time and effort put into a whole concept. Those photographs are just the end result of a huge thought process. Photography is just not all about technical ability and I think a lot of people on here who shoot the standard birds and motor sports events just don't understand that side of photography.

It actually reflects the poor concept and value of the users of this forum which in my opinion surfaces in many meaningless photographs taken by users here (and yes, I do mean birds and bikes going round a circuit).

However, I do think that those, or any photograph on the link are meaningless if one is not prepared (or given the chance) to engage with the subject on a deeper level. There is not much text about the photographs provided which is not helpful and provokes reactions like those shown on here.

Central St. Martin's is amongst the world's finest Universities and encourage great talents and definitely hard to get in, so I would say that you have to engage more to understand the context.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

No-one else has seemed to grasp the fact that these shots are taken by students on their post-grad courses. That in iteslf dictates a different take on photography, yet all too few people seem to be able to understand that.
 
bakedbeans said:
Not reading the whole thread here but I think a lot of people here underestimate the time and effort put into a whole concept. Those photographs are just the end result of a huge thought process. Photography is just not all about technical ability and I think a lot of people on here who shoot the standard birds and motor sports events just don't understand that side of photography.

It actually reflects the poor concept and value of the users of this forum which in my opinion surfaces in many meaningless photographs taken by users here (and yes, I do mean birds and bikes going round a circuit).

However, I do think that those, or any photograph on the link are meaningless if one is not prepared (or given the chance) to engage with the subject on a deeper level. There is not much text about the photographs provided which is not helpful and provokes reactions like those shown on here.

Central St. Martin's is amongst the world's finest Universities and encourage great talents and definitely hard to get in, so I would say that you have to engage more to understand the context.

Flame on :)
Click to expand...

I appreciate that some of these photographers work on a different emotional and spiritual level to us mere technicians but no matter how you dress it up, a turd's a turd.

Flame on :p
 
dod said:
I appreciate that some of these photographers work on a different emotional and spiritual level to us mere technicians but no matter how you dress it up, a turd's a turd.

Flame on :p
Click to expand...

I am not even going to start a discussion with you as you just put yourself in a position which is not worth being dealt with.
 
dod said:
I appreciate that some of these photographers work on a different emotional and spiritual level to us mere technicians but no matter how you dress it up, a turd's a turd.

Flame on :p
Click to expand...

Not when it's on a white plinth in a gallery. Then it's 'the physical impossibility of deification in the mind of someone constipated'.

Have I gone to far :thinking:
 
bakedbeans said:
I am not even going to start a discussion with you as you just put yourself in a position which is not worth being dealt with.
Click to expand...

You see, that's the problem. Just because some people think they're art they get all upset when others see them as rubbish and a lot of those are, in my opinion obviously.

You say that no text isn't helpful. Well, why should a picture, which tells a thousand words, need another thousand to explain it?

You were quite happy to be condescending about people who couldn't "understand" it. Personally if that's what being an artist means I'm quite happy being a photographer :)

Edit for example: an out of focus picture of an eye

"Undifferencies is about how we could define masculine and feminine. I interviewed people to approach this definition and have asked them to identify which part of their bodies could be more feminine or masculine. Freezing this is images is the result of this project. Is there any body image behind the self-biological sex?" :thinking:
 
AlexW said:
Not when it's on a white plinth in a gallery. Then it's 'the physical impossibility of deification in the mind of someone constipated'.

Have I gone to far :thinking:
Click to expand...

You should copyright that before it gets used :p
 
And that's why you probably will never be a successful photographer - you don't understand the meaning of concept. Any book you buy of any famous photographer will have an introduction to the series or body of work to help you understand the photographer's thought process and inspiration. That's text which was missing from those photographs for example. You have seen a fraction of the work and jumped to a conclusion without giving it much thought. I see that as someone with little creative imagination and intelligence.

You might be perfectly capable of taking a technically good shot but that doesn't make you a great photographer.
 
dod said:
You see, that's the problem. Just because some people think they're art they get all upset when others see them as rubbish and a lot of those are, in my opinion obviously.
Click to expand...

The problem isn't one of liking the photographs or not, it's in the use of terms such as 'rubbish' and 'turd' with no indication of the purpose of the work in the first place.

bakedbeans wasn't being in the least bit condescending but merely was able to put forward a well thought out argument as to why these photos should be taken at more than face value.

It's just a shame that other's arguments aren't so well thought out.
 
dod said:
I appreciate that some of these photographers work on a different emotional and spiritual level to us mere technicians but no matter how you dress it up, a turd's a turd.

Flame on :p
Click to expand...

I agree though maybe not in such words.


The technically worst of the lot to me was the disabled woman (the jazz music one is simply not worth commenting on IMO), yet that was the one that to me had the most potential until I saw the entire set. I liked how the hand was the only thing not in motion, to me I assume this was the signify the support she needs, but the rest of the set was boring.

I agree 100% that this forum needs more "collections" so to speak but you need to have more than 1 good shot and lots of filler.

I am currently working on 2 collections and planning 1 idea but in the mean time I'm trying to become technically better so I can achieve what I want, something I think some of these photographers forgot about.
 
NorthernNikon said:
bakedbeans wasn't being in the least bit condescending
Click to expand...

He was actually. In a stroke he discounted the value of sports and wildlife photographers. He claimed that most people here either were unable to engage or too closed minded to engage with the subjects to appreciate them.

That's pretty condescending which is why I responded in exactly the way I did.

Edit: he's also being pretty rude since, just as well I've got the brain and skin of a rhino. :p
 
To say that photographs shouldn't need supporting text is completely ridiculous, and probably missing the point of the bulk of (serious, ie not the billions of P&S efforts) pictures ever taken.

And I agree this forum, along with most others, is very one dimensional in its members' approaches to photography. Not that that's a criticism, it's just the people who choose to sign up after all.
 
dod said:
He was actually. In a stroke he discounted the value of sports and wildlife photographers. He claimed that most people here either were unable to engage or too closed minded to engage with the subjects to appreciate them.

That's pretty condescending which is why I responded in exactly the way I did.
Click to expand...

It's sad that people like you take photography very literally and only want to see what's on the picture. In my opinion, photographs of birds or sports is just boring, meaningless and without lasting value. There is no concept behind apart from taking an "action" shot. That to me, is very boring but a whole other discussion.
 
bakedbeans said:
In my opinion, photographs of birds or sports is just boring, meaningless and without lasting value. There is no concept behind apart from taking an "action" shot.
Click to expand...

Thats me told then :)
 
I think the problem could be that sports and wildlife photography are more akin to crafts. Something that is learnt, repeated and then excelled at.

Fine art photography is pretty different to this in that its not particularly interested in technically excellent photographs and more interested in originality, and the right 'look' to communicate an idea or process. The two types of photography just have totally different objectives, so I can see why the proponents of each 'don't get it' to a certain extent.
 
bakedbeans said:
It's sad that people like you take photography very literally and only want to see what's on the picture. In my opinion, photographs of birds or sports is just boring, meaningless and without lasting value. There is no concept behind apart from taking an "action" shot. That to me, is very boring but a whole other discussion.
Click to expand...

It's actually the same discussion. The question being asked is "Is photography art?"

To some it is, for people like me :( I'd agree it's a more technical exercise but even then some people would still call it art. The thing is it's a question which will never really be answered to the satisfaction of all.

To dismiss particular styles of photography and a huge section of the population who enjoy those forms of photography because they don't fit your values perhaps suggests a tendency to be of closed mind?
 
AlexW said:
...Fine art photography is pretty different to this in that its not particularly interested in technically excellent photographs and more interested in...
Click to expand...

I see what you're saying, but I don't think this line is worded too well. Good "Art" photography should certainly be technically excellent, otherwise you get wannabe art student dross.
 
Jayst84 said:
I see what you're saying, but I don't think this line is worded too well. Good "Art" photography should certainly be technically excellent, otherwise you get wannabe art student dross.
Click to expand...

What about bird snapshots then? Technically brilliant = great photography?
Every single snapshot which isn't blurry = technically good = great photography?

Certainly not.

Your language towards students and the arts suggest that you are somehow envious towards academic professionals in the art and design field?
 
dod said:
It's actually the same discussion. The question being asked is "Is photography art?"

To some it is, for people like me :( I'd agree it's a more technical exercise but even then some people would still call it art. The thing is it's a question which will never really be answered to the satisfaction of all.

To dismiss particular styles of photography and a huge section of the population who enjoy those forms of photography because they don't fit your values perhaps suggests a tendency to be of closed mind?
Click to expand...

Then you are equally close-minded as you are dismissing other forms of photography such as shown on the link from the OP.

Would you say that impressionist painters are not highly technical and the painting is not art? Because painters for example have a long history of technical brilliance and great concepts behind the idea - they combine the two.
 
bakedbeans said:
Then you are equally close-minded as you are dismissing other forms of photography such as shown on the link from the OP.
Click to expand...

Nah, if you bothered to read the thread properly you'd see I already said I liked some of them :)
 
dod said:
Nah, if you bothered to read the thread properly you'd see I already said I liked some of them :)
Click to expand...

All you do is criticizing without actually being constructive. All you said is you like/dislike some of them but not how or why. It's just hot air, nothing more from you. As I said, no brain.
 
bakedbeans said:
Would you say that impressionist painters are not highly technical and the painting is not art? Because painters for example have a long history of technical brilliance and great concepts behind the idea - they combine the two.
Click to expand...

Sorry, missed this, you edited as I posted.

Of course it's art. It's just that I prefer to see my ears and nose where they were originally positioned.
 
dod said:
Sorry, missed this, you edited as I posted.

Of course it's art. It's just that I prefer to see my ears and nose where they were originally positioned.
Click to expand...

I think you should read about what I made reference to.
 
bakedbeans said:
What about bird snapshots then? Technically brilliant = great photography?
Every single snapshot which isn't blurry = technically good = great photography?

Certainly not.

Your language towards students and the arts suggest that you are somehow envious towards academic professionals in the art and design field?
Click to expand...

Your digging yourself a bit of a hole there dude, I don't think that is what Jay is saying at all. Just that art photography isn't exempt from technical competence.
 
bakedbeans said:
I think you should read about what I made reference to.
Click to expand...

Apologies, you're right, my immediate thought was Picasso, my mistake, no brain you see. :)
 
bakedbeans said:
Your language towards students and the arts suggest that you are somehow envious towards academic professionals in the art and design field?
Click to expand...


Woah woah woah, let me guess, you're a student or graduate?


To say that someone is jealous just because they don't like it is extremely narrow minded. I don't like bananas but that doesn't mean I'm jealous of their size so to speak :shake: lol.

Now get down off your artsy high horse and admit, some of em are utter rubbish in both concept and creation.
 
bakedbeans said:
What about bird snapshots then? Technically brilliant = great photography?
Every single snapshot which isn't blurry = technically good = great photography?

Certainly not.

Your language towards students and the arts suggest that you are somehow envious towards academic professionals in the art and design field?
Click to expand...

Hehe, alright mate, chill out. Not all of us are out for a fight. I actually agreed with a lot of what you were saying at the start of the thread.

First off; I think you're putting conditions on technical excellence that I was not. Art photography, or any photography for that matter, to be classified 'good' should be technically good.

In the case of a commercial headshot, that probably means sharp focus, subjectively well lit, accurate colour, etc.

Whereas for a particular art project technical excellence may involve the use of motion blur, out of focus subjects, extreme exposures, etc. All elements which require skill and judgement to apply correctly.

The correct application of any of the above, or any number of other technical skills, is what I was referring to as technical excellence. The best concept in the world still doesn't make good art photography if it is not implemented by a technically competent photographer.

As for the rest, well, if it matters to you just last week I was a finalist in a national photography prize, one of the largest in the world of its kind in fact.. Guess what? It was Art with a capital 'A'.
 
Your digging yourself a bit of a hole there dude, I don't think that is what Jay is saying at all. Just that art photography isn't exempt from technical competence.



that is spot on

art for arts sake.ive seen a lot of pictures from photography students that were terrible blame the instuctors.i couldnt belive the out of focus poorly composed pictures one person with a degree had,they had no eye and no idea.
i appreciate all photography WHEN DONE WELL even holliday snapshots

but i do love good art photography very much this isnt even close

no amount of words telling me it means summat it dont will convince me...

just my oppinion of course

now i must finnish my ansel adams book :thinking::)
 
Somewhere out there in internet land (see edit) there is a collection of well renowned famous photographs with "out of focus" "whites burned out" type comments for each of them. Extremely funny and apt.

The "turds" reaction to these images is amazing considering the plaudits given to some fairly average pictures on this forum. What if these people come and find your discussion, hardly "the most friendly forum on the net" is it!

Anyway this set is maybe speaking to all who try and communicate through forums and the like, what do you think of these?

http://www.csm2009photography.com/Photography_CarolineBriggs.htm

"When we communicate by email, text message, or via social networking sites, sarcasm can fail, irony is lost, and true emotions are hidden. Subtle nuances in body language and expressions, important visual clues in conversation, are lost. We can be left confused by what someone is trying to convey, or disappointed when we are misunderstood." - Caroline Briggs
Click to expand...

edit
The great photos with crit are here.
http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top