A rash of poor photography

[Chuck A]

Digital photography has made taking photos easier and photography more accessible. Unfortunately, digital cameras have produced a boatload of people who wouldn't know an aperture from a hole in the ground. Photography is like any art or craft. Very few people would pick up a paintbrush or sculpting tools and expect to make great or even decent art. Not without some lessons, study and practice. What is it about photography that makes people think that they can pick up a camera and, voila, they are a photographer.

I suppose much of the blame is on the companies producing the cameras. They keep telling us that as their cameras do more for us our photos will be better. In my experience, nothing is farther from the truth. Like anything, improvement comes from hard work and involvement. Cameras have become computers that are making more and more of the decisions for us and in the hands of an experienced photographer they can be a great tool. In inexperienced hands they are producing alot of junk.

Digital photography, while it has gotten many new people interested. Has produced a rash of downright bad photos. Look at place like Photosig. Although, posting of photos can be a good thing, the amount of poor photos on these sites is astounding. It makes me laugh at the number people who have their girlfriend take off their clothes, take some photos and think that they have produced some great art. Others want to produce nice photos but really don't have the knowledge and have not developed the eye to do so. Don't get me wrong. I do appreciate a tastefully done nude.

Photography is a melding of machine and imagination. It must be learned and nurtured. Sometimes by classwork and mentoring and sometimes by trial and error. Either way if you don't understand the mechanics of the camera and develop your own unique way of seeing photography will be just another fruitless endeavor.

Preaching "Getting back to basics" is pretty useless any more. There are so few "basic" cameras like the Pentax K1000, or the Pentax ZX-M. There are even fewer when it comes to digital. A basic camera is not a must to learn photography but it sure helps IMHO. Digital offers some excellent learning opportunuties. The instant feedback and live histograms are truly wonderful innovations that can help photographers learn good technique more quickly. But when placed in a camera full of buttons and switches that can boggle the new photographers mind they get lost in the translation. I just wish that digital cameras were less like computers and more like cameras that have proven themselves as learning tools.

I am not talking about the everyday snapshooter here. I am talking about people who are proudly posting poor photographs as art on websites. Get back to basics. If you're not sure what an aperture is or how it relates to shutter speed. If you haven't looked at some of the great photographers, the list is very long, I encourage you to do so. The amount of knowledge gained from studying great photographs is invaluable. If you are new to photography then read and practice. Find some more experienced people and learn, learn, learn. Your photos will be the better for it.

I half expect to get blasted for my views here. Well, if it happens, so be it. Photography is a passion of mine. One that I would like to see improve, not regress. We all have alot to learn.

--
Thanks & God Bless,
Chuck
http://www.pbase.com/candrask

'Our actions are the demonstration of our character'

 

[Vancemac]

I half expect to get blasted for my views here. Well, if it
happens, so be it.

Yea, pretty pretentious. But let's forgive that as a momentary need to vent.

Photography is a passion of mine. One that I
would like to see improve, not regress. We all have alot to learn.

Here's the more interesting topic. While it is true that "letting in the masses" is going to mean a lot of lower caliber work, the net effect is astronomically positive. The sheer numbers game makes this an easy one. SO many more MILLIONS of people are exposed to affordable and readily available serious photography equipment -- not to mention photographic resources/tutorials/forums/etc.

It's like complaining that there are so many more poor programmers today than 30 years ago. Well, yea, but there are also 50 million MORE programmers than there were 30 years ago! And I don't think there is anyone who would argue that the state of programming has regressed in the last 30 years.

Just my perspective.

Vance

 

[Petteri Sulonen]

I half expect to get blasted for my views here. Well, if it
happens, so be it.

Yea, pretty pretentious. But let's forgive that as a momentary
need to vent.

Photography is a passion of mine. One that I
would like to see improve, not regress. We all have alot to learn.

Here's the more interesting topic. While it is true that "letting
in the masses" is going to mean a lot of lower caliber work, the
net effect is astronomically positive. The sheer numbers game
makes this an easy one. SO many more MILLIONS of people are
exposed to affordable and readily available serious photography
equipment -- not to mention photographic
resources/tutorials/forums/etc.

[snip]

This guy told me that he only picked up a camera a very short while back. He said he's never done any visual arts before, even as an interested spectator. Without digital photography, it's unlikely he would ever have discovered his talent.

[ http://www.pbase.com/hinius/favourites ]

Whenever you gripe about the riffraff, think about the geniuses who would be lost without the right circumstances coming along.

Petteri
--



[ http://www.prime-junta.tk ]

 

[davidroy]

I don't think there is much difference between todays photographs and yesterdays as far as image quality goes. You have to remember that with the advent of the internet and digital photography coming together we, as individuals, are seeing many, many more samples of "photographers" images in a couple of months than we probably saw in all the time prior to digital photography. I feel reasonably sure if you were some how able to view film picture's from 100 random general population "photographers" of say 30-40 years ago you would feel the same way about them as you do the present crop of digital "photographers" images. I personally think the surge in interest in "digital" photography is great because eventually it is going to spawn some great photographers. And of course there will be many more like you and I that will produce "OK" pictures that are fun to share with friends and family and an occasional one worthy of framing. The main thing is that people are obviously enjoying this hobby and if they want to share their images with us, good or bad, I see no harm in that. To think that every image that is posted in here should look like something Ansel Adams, Galen Rowell or David Muench would take is unreasonable. Those types are few and far between. For the most part we are all amatuers in here and as such you will see images all over the spectrum, some pleasing, some not so pleasing. And it has nothing to do with what type of format, film or digital, is used to capture the images.

Just my humble opinion FWIW.
Reagrds,

--
DavidRoy.....behind the lens
http://www.pbase.com/davidroyimages

 

[kristian2000]

Preaching "Getting back to basics" is pretty useless any more.
There are so few "basic" cameras like the Pentax K1000,

Oh there's one, it's called a Digital Rebel/300D. It's the one everybody calls "crippled".

--

 

[Ken Leonard]

Hi David, thank so much for your input. I see you at some photoshoots and we both know there are a lot of "amateur" digital photo buffs that are unwilling to learn from seasoned photogs as yourself and I.

Here is a very similar thread now going on in the NTF forum. You might want to read my sumary of the problem

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1007&message=8997822

Ken

I don't think there is much difference between todays photographs
and yesterdays as far as image quality goes. You have to remember
that with the advent of the internet and digital photography coming
together we, as individuals, are seeing many, many more samples of
"photographers" images in a couple of months than we probably saw
in all the time prior to digital photography. I feel reasonably
sure if you were some how able to view film picture's from 100
random general population "photographers" of say 30-40 years ago
you would feel the same way about them as you do the present crop
of digital "photographers" images. I personally think the surge in
interest in "digital" photography is great because eventually it
is going to spawn some great photographers. And of course there
will be many more like you and I that will produce "OK" pictures
that are fun to share with friends and family and an occasional one
worthy of framing. The main thing is that people are obviously
enjoying this hobby and if they want to share their images with us,
good or bad, I see no harm in that. To think that every image that
is posted in here should look like something Ansel Adams, Galen
Rowell or David Muench would take is unreasonable. Those types are
few and far between. For the most part we are all amatuers in here
and as such you will see images all over the spectrum, some
pleasing, some not so pleasing. And it has nothing to do with what
type of format, film or digital, is used to capture the images.

Just my humble opinion FWIW.
Reagrds,

--
DavidRoy.....behind the lens
http://www.pbase.com/davidroyimages

--
Your comments and critiques always welcome

Ken Leonard
Belmont Shore, SoCal
pbase supporter since 2001
Nikon Coolpix 5000 w/ WC-E68 19 mm equiv. wide angle adaptor
Nikon Coolpix 8700
Nikon Coolpix 8700 test shots

http://www.pbase.com/xl1ken/87t

Nikon Coolpix 8700 Online Resource Guide

http://home.earthlink.net/~xl1ken

12,000 + classic car photos online at:

http://www.kensclassics.com

 

[Gwynn T Robinson]

Hi,

Well, here's a bit of a flame for you then - since you asked....

That is such a sad sad posting. A lot of what you said has the ring of truth about it but surely we should be encouraging to those that try. Not everyone will be an 'effective' artist but should we decry their efforts.? They may think incorrectly that they have produced good work. For them it may be good work. Does that really insense us that much? Are we that intollerant?

I personally prefer to encourage and to help others open their eyes to a bigger world. Sometimes they open my eyes too! What will your approach achieve?

Shutting people out and treating them as inferior is a bit of a no win strategy. Ecouragement and helpful critique (with sensitivity and respect) may not ‘enforce’ better results, but it MAY. 99% risk of guaranteed failure against 1% risk of success? I take the 1% every time.

If you understand your ‘trade’ then help others to understand too.

More importantly, I thought that this ‘hobby’ was supposed to be fun and enjoyable, not a punishment. So lighten up. You may be right but that doesn’t mean that you are right!!!

And

There are a lot of people out there that paint but very few artists! Perhaps we should ban them or rant about them too? How dare they be happy with their shoddy, unartistic, dull work!!

There, is that a good enough flame for you?

Me, I learn from everyone I can all the time. Photography is a life long learning. I didn’t start as an expert and many of my initial images were a bit poor as I learned about photography and my camera. I am so glad I wasn’t ‘put down’ before I managed to achieve some good work. (and yes I am and always have been an artist – actually I believe that most everybody is some form of artist, but most never realise it). I have learned that there is a lot of arrogance in the photographic world and a lot of rubbish that is talked. Sad.

I like people that try.

Best wishes

Gwynn T Robinson BSc (Hons) Comp. C.Eng. MBCS. ARPS

Digital photography has made taking photos easier and photography
more accessible. Unfortunately, digital cameras have produced a
boatload of people who wouldn't know an aperture from a hole in the
ground. Photography is like any art or craft. Very few people would
pick up a paintbrush or sculpting tools and expect to make great or
even decent art. Not without some lessons, study and practice. What
is it about photography that makes people think that they can pick
up a camera and, voila, they are a photographer.

I suppose much of the blame is on the companies producing the
cameras. They keep telling us that as their cameras do more for us
our photos will be better. In my experience, nothing is farther
from the truth. Like anything, improvement comes from hard work and
involvement. Cameras have become computers that are making more and
more of the decisions for us and in the hands of an experienced
photographer they can be a great tool. In inexperienced hands they
are producing alot of junk.

Digital photography, while it has gotten many new people
interested. Has produced a rash of downright bad photos. Look at
place like Photosig. Although, posting of photos can be a good
thing, the amount of poor photos on these sites is astounding. It
makes me laugh at the number people who have their girlfriend take
off their clothes, take some photos and think that they have
produced some great art. Others want to produce nice photos but
really don't have the knowledge and have not developed the eye to
do so. Don't get me wrong. I do appreciate a tastefully done nude.

Photography is a melding of machine and imagination. It must be
learned and nurtured. Sometimes by classwork and mentoring and
sometimes by trial and error. Either way if you don't understand
the mechanics of the camera and develop your own unique way of
seeing photography will be just another fruitless endeavor.

Preaching "Getting back to basics" is pretty useless any more.
There are so few "basic" cameras like the Pentax K1000, or the
Pentax ZX-M. There are even fewer when it comes to digital. A basic
camera is not a must to learn photography but it sure helps IMHO.
Digital offers some excellent learning opportunuties. The instant
feedback and live histograms are truly wonderful innovations that
can help photographers learn good technique more quickly. But when
placed in a camera full of buttons and switches that can boggle the
new photographers mind they get lost in the translation. I just
wish that digital cameras were less like computers and more like
cameras that have proven themselves as learning tools.

I am not talking about the everyday snapshooter here. I am talking
about people who are proudly posting poor photographs as art on
websites. Get back to basics. If you're not sure what an aperture
is or how it relates to shutter speed. If you haven't looked at
some of the great photographers, the list is very long, I encourage
you to do so. The amount of knowledge gained from studying great
photographs is invaluable. If you are new to photography then read
and practice. Find some more experienced people and learn, learn,
learn. Your photos will be the better for it.

I half expect to get blasted for my views here. Well, if it
happens, so be it. Photography is a passion of mine. One that I
would like to see improve, not regress. We all have alot to learn.

--
Thanks & God Bless,
Chuck
http://www.pbase.com/candrask

'Our actions are the demonstration of our character'

--
My vision is to see my dreams.
My Mission is to touch yours.

 

[Ken Leonard]

Gwynn

Great post and I agree 100%. None of us here are an Ansel Adams for crying out loud. I have taken perhaps 50,000 digital photos over the past 5 years and I am still learning. When I am on a photo shoot and see a fellow digital photographer obviously doing something wrong I try to correct them. They are almost always very thankful I took the time and it makes me feel good.

Ken

Hi,

Well, here's a bit of a flame for you then - since you asked....

That is such a sad sad posting. A lot of what you said has the ring
of truth about it but surely we should be encouraging to those that
try. Not everyone will be an 'effective' artist but should we decry
their efforts.? They may think incorrectly that they have produced
good work. For them it may be good work. Does that really insense
us that much? Are we that intollerant?

I personally prefer to encourage and to help others open their eyes
to a bigger world. Sometimes they open my eyes too! What will your
approach achieve?

Shutting people out and treating them as inferior is a bit of a no
win strategy. Ecouragement and helpful critique (with sensitivity
and respect) may not ‘enforce’ better results, but it MAY. 99% risk
of guaranteed failure against 1% risk of success? I take the 1%
every time.

If you understand your ‘trade’ then help others to understand too.

More importantly, I thought that this ‘hobby’ was supposed to be
fun and enjoyable, not a punishment. So lighten up. You may be
right but that doesn’t mean that you are right!!!

And

There are a lot of people out there that paint but very few
artists! Perhaps we should ban them or rant about them too? How
dare they be happy with their shoddy, unartistic, dull work!!

There, is that a good enough flame for you?

Me, I learn from everyone I can all the time. Photography is a life
long learning. I didn’t start as an expert and many of my initial
images were a bit poor as I learned about photography and my
camera. I am so glad I wasn’t ‘put down’ before I managed to
achieve some good work. (and yes I am and always have been an
artist – actually I believe that most everybody is some form of
artist, but most never realise it). I have learned that there is a
lot of arrogance in the photographic world and a lot of rubbish
that is talked. Sad.

I like people that try.

Best wishes

Gwynn T Robinson BSc (Hons) Comp. C.Eng. MBCS. ARPS

--
Your comments and critiques always welcome

Ken Leonard
Belmont Shore, SoCal
pbase supporter since 2001
Nikon Coolpix 5000 w/ WC-E68 19 mm equiv. wide angle adaptor
Nikon Coolpix 8700
Nikon Coolpix 8700 test shots

http://www.pbase.com/xl1ken/87t

Nikon Coolpix 8700 Online Resource Guide

http://home.earthlink.net/~xl1ken

12,000 + classic car photos online at:

http://www.kensclassics.com

 

[Adrian E227460]

I hear you on that one. I'm on a site named Deviantart (aap.deviantart.com would be me - sorry about the spam ) which is FILLED with junk pictures (holy hell, you should see the webcam snapshot stuff on there) and with people thinking just as you described. It's sad.

I used to paint and write a lot as well (some of them are on my site too), and indeed: no one would pick up a brush and think they'll create great work. I've never seen it and I probably never will. With photography it's different, I suppose - kinda like writing. Heck, (nearly) everyone can do the physical and mental action of writing but 99% of the people (dunno if I'm one of them) miss the dictionary in their head and/or the way to use it to choose words to express a mood. This is not recognized by the masses, so you'll never get any credit for your work. It's just...depressing.

I gotta shut up. Time for more coffee.

Digital photography has made taking photos easier and photography
more accessible. Unfortunately, digital cameras have produced a
boatload of people who wouldn't know an aperture from a hole in the
ground. Photography is like any art or craft. Very few people would
pick up a paintbrush or sculpting tools and expect to make great or
even decent art. Not without some lessons, study and practice. What
is it about photography that makes people think that they can pick
up a camera and, voila, they are a photographer.

I suppose much of the blame is on the companies producing the
cameras. They keep telling us that as their cameras do more for us
our photos will be better. In my experience, nothing is farther
from the truth. Like anything, improvement comes from hard work and
involvement. Cameras have become computers that are making more and
more of the decisions for us and in the hands of an experienced
photographer they can be a great tool. In inexperienced hands they
are producing alot of junk.

Digital photography, while it has gotten many new people
interested. Has produced a rash of downright bad photos. Look at
place like Photosig. Although, posting of photos can be a good
thing, the amount of poor photos on these sites is astounding. It
makes me laugh at the number people who have their girlfriend take
off their clothes, take some photos and think that they have
produced some great art. Others want to produce nice photos but
really don't have the knowledge and have not developed the eye to
do so. Don't get me wrong. I do appreciate a tastefully done nude.

Photography is a melding of machine and imagination. It must be
learned and nurtured. Sometimes by classwork and mentoring and
sometimes by trial and error. Either way if you don't understand
the mechanics of the camera and develop your own unique way of
seeing photography will be just another fruitless endeavor.

Preaching "Getting back to basics" is pretty useless any more.
There are so few "basic" cameras like the Pentax K1000, or the
Pentax ZX-M. There are even fewer when it comes to digital. A basic
camera is not a must to learn photography but it sure helps IMHO.
Digital offers some excellent learning opportunuties. The instant
feedback and live histograms are truly wonderful innovations that
can help photographers learn good technique more quickly. But when
placed in a camera full of buttons and switches that can boggle the
new photographers mind they get lost in the translation. I just
wish that digital cameras were less like computers and more like
cameras that have proven themselves as learning tools.

I am not talking about the everyday snapshooter here. I am talking
about people who are proudly posting poor photographs as art on
websites. Get back to basics. If you're not sure what an aperture
is or how it relates to shutter speed. If you haven't looked at
some of the great photographers, the list is very long, I encourage
you to do so. The amount of knowledge gained from studying great
photographs is invaluable. If you are new to photography then read
and practice. Find some more experienced people and learn, learn,
learn. Your photos will be the better for it.

I half expect to get blasted for my views here. Well, if it
happens, so be it. Photography is a passion of mine. One that I
would like to see improve, not regress. We all have alot to learn.

--
Thanks & God Bless,
Chuck
http://www.pbase.com/candrask

'Our actions are the demonstration of our character'

--
Warning: photographs steal your soul!

 

[Gwynn T Robinson]

Hi again,

Perhaps I could have added one more thing, especially as I can see this thread dividing into two arguments.

I do prefer people who are willing to learn and grow (even those who don't know that they need to, yet). And I believe that the majority of us are like that.

There are only a tiny fraction of people (I think) who believe that their work is great and that they don;t need to learn anything. So they are hardly worth such a thread.

I presume this thread is about most of us - the willing, learning, majority.

I hope my work is not dull. Well, I like it!

Gwynnnn

Digital photography has made taking photos easier and photography
more accessible. Unfortunately, digital cameras have produced a
boatload of people who wouldn't know an aperture from a hole in the
ground. Photography is like any art or craft. Very few people would
pick up a paintbrush or sculpting tools and expect to make great or
even decent art. Not without some lessons, study and practice. What
is it about photography that makes people think that they can pick
up a camera and, voila, they are a photographer.

I suppose much of the blame is on the companies producing the
cameras. They keep telling us that as their cameras do more for us
our photos will be better. In my experience, nothing is farther
from the truth. Like anything, improvement comes from hard work and
involvement. Cameras have become computers that are making more and
more of the decisions for us and in the hands of an experienced
photographer they can be a great tool. In inexperienced hands they
are producing alot of junk.

Digital photography, while it has gotten many new people
interested. Has produced a rash of downright bad photos. Look at
place like Photosig. Although, posting of photos can be a good
thing, the amount of poor photos on these sites is astounding. It
makes me laugh at the number people who have their girlfriend take
off their clothes, take some photos and think that they have
produced some great art. Others want to produce nice photos but
really don't have the knowledge and have not developed the eye to
do so. Don't get me wrong. I do appreciate a tastefully done nude.

Photography is a melding of machine and imagination. It must be
learned and nurtured. Sometimes by classwork and mentoring and
sometimes by trial and error. Either way if you don't understand
the mechanics of the camera and develop your own unique way of
seeing photography will be just another fruitless endeavor.

Preaching "Getting back to basics" is pretty useless any more.
There are so few "basic" cameras like the Pentax K1000, or the
Pentax ZX-M. There are even fewer when it comes to digital. A basic
camera is not a must to learn photography but it sure helps IMHO.
Digital offers some excellent learning opportunuties. The instant
feedback and live histograms are truly wonderful innovations that
can help photographers learn good technique more quickly. But when
placed in a camera full of buttons and switches that can boggle the
new photographers mind they get lost in the translation. I just
wish that digital cameras were less like computers and more like
cameras that have proven themselves as learning tools.

I am not talking about the everyday snapshooter here. I am talking
about people who are proudly posting poor photographs as art on
websites. Get back to basics. If you're not sure what an aperture
is or how it relates to shutter speed. If you haven't looked at
some of the great photographers, the list is very long, I encourage
you to do so. The amount of knowledge gained from studying great
photographs is invaluable. If you are new to photography then read
and practice. Find some more experienced people and learn, learn,
learn. Your photos will be the better for it.

I half expect to get blasted for my views here. Well, if it
happens, so be it. Photography is a passion of mine. One that I
would like to see improve, not regress. We all have alot to learn.

--
Thanks & God Bless,
Chuck
http://www.pbase.com/candrask

'Our actions are the demonstration of our character'

--
My vision is to see my dreams.
My Mission is to touch yours.

 

[Dominic Groß]

The only difference I can see is that nowadays the average pictures get uploaded. In the old filmdays the labs had to mess with it

If you think that any of the pictures on pbase, photosig or so on are especially bad you have probably not seen much of what people did to (with) film, or still do.

I know a few persons using entry level SLRs who have no clue at all and the only reason they still get any image is the enormous DR of film. One of them would go on and on to tell you just how beautiful the light in a certain situation is, a situation best described as heavy backlight. And those people don't want to listen, even the really bad results can't convince them...

Getting back on topic this leads to another fundamental problem. With negative film the lab could still pull out something halfdecent even from a really messed up exposure. Try the shooting behaviour that leads to that with a digital and you are lost, it is more like slides.
--
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/dominic_gross_sd10

 

[dog010]

There's something about the first post that incites some feeling in me; it's not inarguably wrong but the manner in which it has been written isn't entirely productive and does will people to respond defensively.

Perhaps I'm not optimistic but the whole idea of "more photographers today than ever= more good ones/more bad ones" doesn't really sway me in either direction, neither does the parallel to computer programming. Perhaps because the ratio inherently remains the same...?

This is just a dead argument on the whole; not everyone is going to want to sit down and study the masters of old, they'd already be doing so if they had that desire. Let them (us, must be careful with the words ) post pictures-- call them pathetic if you must but clarify your grounds; what benchmark are you critiquing them against? Is your remark going to be helpful? Whether that help is then enacted upon is another story and out of your control. Not everyone has the same goal and photography is MORE than just ART.

The only benefit of the older generation of bodies (K1000, FM2n, F1n, OM1 etc) is the coercive nature of them-- you learn or you give up in tears. There's no middle ground. Maybe a bit of forced pain is good for one's photography but how do you market that to people? How do you sell pain? (I like sounding absurd).

Nikon FM3A-- you're in control 24/7???

--
Michael King

Who cares how you get the shot; just photograph it and photograph it well

http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?include=all&user_id=816617

 

[Liquid_Thought]

Hi there.

I took a look at that URL you posted & I both agree and disagree with you. First of all, he's a fast learner. He apparently spent some time learning the technical aspects of photography. I think that the poster is suggesting that most do not.

Secondly, I don't really like abstracts so I don't find many of the photos appealing really. However, it is very obvious that this person is experimenting a lot and that's important. Whoever this guy is, one thing is apparent that is that he's a pretty smart cookie when it comes to learning something new.

The reason I don't like abstracts is because it's too artsy to me. Here's the corner of a building... it just doesn't do anything for me. I'm not interested in a debate about the worth of abstracts, I'm just giving you a personal viewpoint about why I think they are ugly.

To sum it up, I think you have a valid point that there are people who have benefitted themselves, and us as well, from the new age of photography and that there are people who have an 'eye' for it.

I half expect to get blasted for my views here. Well, if it
happens, so be it.

Yea, pretty pretentious. But let's forgive that as a momentary
need to vent.

Photography is a passion of mine. One that I
would like to see improve, not regress. We all have alot to learn.

Here's the more interesting topic. While it is true that "letting
in the masses" is going to mean a lot of lower caliber work, the
net effect is astronomically positive. The sheer numbers game
makes this an easy one. SO many more MILLIONS of people are
exposed to affordable and readily available serious photography
equipment -- not to mention photographic
resources/tutorials/forums/etc.

[snip]

This guy told me that he only picked up a camera a very short while
back. He said he's never done any visual arts before, even as an
interested spectator. Without digital photography, it's unlikely he
would ever have discovered his talent.

[ http://www.pbase.com/hinius/favourites ]

Whenever you gripe about the riffraff, think about the geniuses who
would be lost without the right circumstances coming along.

Petteri
--



[ http://www.prime-junta.tk ]

 

[kiwi]

... Unfortunately, digital cameras have produced a boatload of people
who wouldn't know an aperture from a hole in theground.

Unfortunately, the internet has produced a boatload of people who wouldn't know a pulpit from a public toilet.

... What is it about photography that makes people think that they can > pick up a camera and, voila, they are a photographer?

What is it about the internet that makes people think that they can pick up a computer and, voila, they are a preacher!
--
Mike Moller
Northland, New Zealand
http://www.lallybroch.co.nz

 

[Liquid_Thought]

Hi Gwynn,

I understand your viewpoint, but I also understand Chuck's viewpoint as well. Let me tell you a quick story:

A new guy started at our work and the person training him was a personal friend of his. This trainer was unusually tough and demanding and one day I took him aside and said, "Hey man, take it easy on the guy, he's new."

He responded saying, "He's my friend. I can't take it easy on him."

Well, now the guy's a nervous wreck, always second-guessing himself. But the friendship intent was good.

I propose that we do one of three things when seeing junk posted on the net:

1. Recognize that they are young in the art of photography and give them a break. Congratulate them on the good things they did with the photo.

2. Don't say anything. This is my usual response. Like mama always said, "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all."

3. Teach them with generosity and explain to them what is wrong with the picture and ask them to try again.

Whenever I see someone happy about an image that would make me cringe if I took it, I think about how they state their case. If they seem overly excited, then they are just happy that they got something right. They probably look at most of our work in complete awe and admiration. I take it easy on them and give them compliments on the good aspects of the shot. Certainly it can't be all bad, not everything. It isn't going to be a blurry mess with no subject and no composition at all. Something can be found to give them the enthusiam to continue.

If I see something bad and I've seen the poster before, they simply don't have an eye for photography. But that's not my job to tell them that. They'll learn or they won't. We have politicians and probably co-workers that have no hope at all; but we shrug and move on. Sometimes I think that being passionate about something can blur all the rest of everything in how we deal with people. Just don't say anything.

If you have the time, like the poster, and feel you can help. Then do so! That's what makes forums such as this one so great. I've learned most everything I know from this forum. By comparision to some of you, it isn't a lot. But the wealth of knowledge here is incredible. But if you do want to help, then you can't hide behind all sorts of polite-society nonsense foam-padding between your padewan learner and your teachings. You have to be able to tell them that something is just plain terrible. But you also have to tell them why.

I would like to finish with an interesting viewpoint. Let's say that Ansel Adams was alive and not popular. How many times do you think people would say, I think you can do better. It's exposed well, but does everything you do have to black and white, it's tiresome Ansel, can you please add some color? How many times are you going to show us that half-dome shot... again and again, everyweek you tweak that thing, just leave it alone. It was good the first time. Sheesh!!! The point is that sometimes our opinions aren't even good. Sometimes we get too emotionally involved here. I think everyone, myself included, should take a step back and think how would I receive this advice if the roles were reversed?

 

[earub]

... Unfortunately, digital cameras have produced a boatload of people
who wouldn't know an aperture from a hole in theground.

Unfortunately, the internet has produced a boatload of people who
wouldn't know a pulpit from a public toilet.

... What is it about photography that makes people think that they can > pick up a camera and, voila, they are a photographer?

What is it about the internet that makes people think that they can
pick up a computer and, voila, they are a preacher!
--
Mike Moller
Northland, New Zealand
http://www.lallybroch.co.nz

--
Earl

 

[Chuck A]

The only difference I can see is that nowadays the average pictures
get uploaded. In the old filmdays the labs had to mess with it

If you think that any of the pictures on pbase, photosig or so on
are especially bad you have probably not seen much of what people
did to (with) film, or still do.

But with film, before the internet and affordable scanners, you had to find a place to hang your photos for others to see. This was a deliberate action that generally required someones permission to do so. There was more of a weeding out policy here. The internet makes to too easy.

I know a few persons using entry level SLRs who have no clue at all
and the only reason they still get any image is the enormous DR of
film. One of them would go on and on to tell you just how beautiful
the light in a certain situation is, a situation best described as
heavy backlight. And those people don't want to listen, even the
really bad results can't convince them...

This is the type of person that I am posting about. Because of the digital explosion. There are many more of them.

Getting back on topic this leads to another fundamental problem.
With negative film the lab could still pull out something
halfdecent even from a really messed up exposure. Try the shooting
behaviour that leads to that with a digital and you are lost, it is
more like slides.

If digital is more rigorous then even more education is required.

--
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/dominic_gross_sd10

--
Thanks & God Bless,
Chuck
http://www.pbase.com/candrask

'Our actions are the demonstration of our character'

 

[Chuck A]

There's something about the first post that incites some feeling in
me; it's not inarguably wrong but the manner in which it has been
written isn't entirely productive and does will people to respond
defensively.

Perhaps I'm not optimistic but the whole idea of "more
photographers today than ever= more good ones/more bad ones"
doesn't really sway me in either direction, neither does the
parallel to computer programming. Perhaps because the ratio
inherently remains the same...?

This is just a dead argument on the whole; not everyone is going to
want to sit down and study the masters of old, they'd already be
doing so if they had that desire. Let them (us, must be careful
with the words ) post pictures-- call them pathetic if you must
but clarify your grounds; what benchmark are you critiquing them
against? Is your remark going to be helpful?

Sorry, it was late and night and I really wasn't trying to be totally helpful. I had just spent some time looking at a few sites and was venting.

Whether that help is
then enacted upon is another story and out of your control. Not
everyone has the same goal and photography is MORE than just ART.

The only benefit of the older generation of bodies (K1000, FM2n,
F1n, OM1 etc) is the coercive nature of them-- you learn or you
give up in tears. There's no middle ground. Maybe a bit of forced
pain is good for one's photography but how do you market that to
people? How do you sell pain? (I like sounding absurd).

Nikon FM3A-- you're in control 24/7???

--
Michael King

Who cares how you get the shot; just photograph it and photograph
it well

You make my case right here. Photograph it well.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?include=all&user_id=816617

--
Thanks & God Bless,
Chuck
http://www.pbase.com/candrask

'Our actions are the demonstration of our character'

 

[Chuck A]

... Unfortunately, digital cameras have produced a boatload of people
who wouldn't know an aperture from a hole in theground.

Unfortunately, the internet has produced a boatload of people who
wouldn't know a pulpit from a public toilet.

... What is it about photography that makes people think that they can > pick up a camera and, voila, they are a photographer?

What is it about the internet that makes people think that they can
pick up a computer and, voila, they are a preacher!
--
Mike Moller
Northland, New Zealand
http://www.lallybroch.co.nz

You're pretty funny. You should take it on the road. As usual there are those that can't read a strong opinion without attacking it.

--
Thanks & God Bless,
Chuck
http://www.pbase.com/candrask

'Our actions are the demonstration of our character'

 

[Chuck A]

I half expect to get blasted for my views here. Well, if it
happens, so be it.

Yea, pretty pretentious. But let's forgive that as a momentary
need to vent.

Photography is a passion of mine. One that I
would like to see improve, not regress. We all have alot to learn.

Here's the more interesting topic. While it is true that "letting
in the masses" is going to mean a lot of lower caliber work, the
net effect is astronomically positive. The sheer numbers game
makes this an easy one. SO many more MILLIONS of people are
exposed to affordable and readily available serious photography
equipment -- not to mention photographic
resources/tutorials/forums/etc.

[snip]

This guy told me that he only picked up a camera a very short while
back. He said he's never done any visual arts before, even as an
interested spectator. Without digital photography, it's unlikely he
would ever have discovered his talent.

[ http://www.pbase.com/hinius/favourites ]

Whenever you gripe about the riffraff, think about the geniuses who
would be lost without the right circumstances coming along.

Petteri
--



[ http://www.prime-junta.tk ]

I am not speaking of people that take the time to learn and are evolving and stretching themselves. I am speaking of those who are pretty photo illiterate but don't realize it.

--
Thanks & God Bless,
Chuck
http://www.pbase.com/candrask

'Our actions are the demonstration of our character'