Reading mode: Light Dark

More on photo quality

Go to last post
Nothing wrong with dogs, bugs and flowers really.

Its just that a beautiful flower no outstanding image makes on its own. The outstanding image is made by the photographer. You have to do something more than pointing your camera at beautiful stuff.

One of my favourites here, Georges Noblet a.k.a. vermeer is an example. I think he is good. At least I like his images. He makes lots of images and some are IMHO outstanding, most have something extra.

This something extra is a either a result of some deliberate plan or its just plain intuitive skills, I dont know.

I remember a beautiful image of some alps. Alps are often very beautiful. But beautiful alps no outstanding image makes. But - Georges had added something extra. It was very simple. A road with an orange line. OK - adding a road in the lower part of the image at a nice angle is a rather well known trick to make the image more interesting. But - the orange line made it. Could have been luck. But in that case, Georges often is a very lucky man.

You show rather many images Sandy. They are not bad. But ... you have still to show me an outstanding image. And if you can show a portofolio full of outstanding images ... then you are a gifted photographer.

NOTE - I dont say I am.

I am a slow starter - I have photographed many years. Sometimes I have made something thats more interesting. But more often not. But - I find the digital technology accelerates my understanding. Maybe I will be a good photographer some day :)

BTW - I prefer the paper medium over pixels on a screen and mostly an artistic medium. I dont like cheap ordinary paper. That was one reason why I experimented with alternative printing methods such as Carbon Printing. But - with modern digital printers and artistic medium I am in heaven :) No need for tedious old processes any more for me.

Roland
SandyF said:
FritsThomsen said:
BUGS ????? :) :) :)
Click to expand...
and what's wrong with
FLOWERS ???? :)

or dogs, for that matter, we have one again ....
the only way some of the family saw her at first was via my photos on flickr

Best regards, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman (archival)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann (current)
Click to expand...
--
Roland

support http://www.openraw.org/
(Sleeping - so the need to support it is even higher)

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html
 
Chato said:
...

Maybe, you've never seen this image before? But if someone else has, it's boring and not worthy of respect?



It stands or falls on its own merits...
Click to expand...
Its cool. Like it. Its worthy of respect. It has something extra.

I assume its cropped?

I think (if possible) that this particular image would gain from being very large and not so heavily cropped.

--
Roland

support http://www.openraw.org/
(Sleeping - so the need to support it is even higher)

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html
 
Chato said:
There are people who make money selling dog shots, flower shots, wildlife shots. Are their photographs intrinsically less valuble, not as good as other kinds of shots - Like Weddings? :)
Click to expand...
As I said - nothing wrong with dog shots. Nothing wrong with making money either. Thats actually quite nice to do :)
Chato said:
To automatically call an entire genre of photography as being mediocre simply because it belongs to that genre is just plain weird... :(
Click to expand...
Never did. Or at least it was never my intention. Others got it ... but some didnt ... so I assume I was not clear enough.

To be more clear - this is what I meant. Lets say you get yourself a camera but ... you dont have enough of a burning interest and/or natural skills to search for and get those outstanding images. Then you often point your camera around you at things you have easily access to. Your dog, your garden, your hobby, your family, your friends, whatever. Of course - those images have a value to you. And of course - it might happen that they turn out extraordinary. But very seldom pure chance results in extraordinary results. It needs something more. You have to invest some interest and work into the making and start thinking - what is the reason for me making this image or this kind of images.
Chato said:
Every photograph stands or falls on its own merits.
Click to expand...
Yes and no. If you find out that a rather ordinary photo is really made by Henri Cartier-Bresson then I assume its more interesting all of a sudden.
Chato said:
As for this forum, the quality of photography is about on the same level as other forums. People asking for help, people rightly or wrongly showing off their best. whatever.
Click to expand...
As far as I know yes.

--
Roland

support http://www.openraw.org/
(Sleeping - so the need to support it is even higher)

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html
 
Midnighter said:
I demand to know what these so called 'sites' are. Links or it never happened!
Click to expand...
They exist - I promise you :)

I have looked at lots of them - both personal and member sites.

I dont write down the site names or remember them. I just assume I will find new ones. Its like youtube. Lots of good stuff and searching is half the fun.

Good hunting!

--
Roland

support http://www.openraw.org/
(Sleeping - so the need to support it is even higher)

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html
 
I don't think the subject has to be unique - on the contrary, often the subject is very common.

But to be good rather than an accurate record, the picture has to have some vital input from the photographer. That input can be many things: choice of viewpoint, framing, careful exclusion of distractions, use of line, curve, pattern, shadow, colour, lighting whatever.

I have seen the most extraordinary flower shots for example, but without exception, not one of them was a straight record shot. The all showed artistry.

Flowers in the garden look nice, tempting subjects and modern equipment makes record shots a snap. So everyone does it - and there are millions of near identical record shots of flowers. Look at 3000 of them and you never want to see another.

Good flower shots on the other hand are much rarer. If you pull off a flower shot that looks like art, you've done well. Your bird shot has some artistry, it is not a plain record shot.

--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/default.shtml
 
Roland Karlsson said:
Its cool. Like it. Its worthy of respect. It has something extra.
Click to expand...
But the other shot was original. And will never be duplicated. I'm sure you can find thousands of good shots of a Little Blue Heron, but you wont now, or EVER, find shots of Gizmo, Sherman and Chato in the same frame. And I suspect you'd have a hard time finding even comparable dogs in the same frame. :)
Roland Karlsson said:
I assume its cropped?

I think (if possible) that this particular image would gain from being very large and not so heavily cropped.
Click to expand...
I can't recall why I cropped it. But it's about 75 percent of full frame. I assume I cropped it to give more room on the left, but I can't remember.

Dave
Roland Karlsson said:
--
Roland

support http://www.openraw.org/
(Sleeping - so the need to support it is even higher)

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html
Click to expand...
 
DMillier said:
I don't think the subject has to be unique - on the contrary, often the subject is very common.

But to be good rather than an accurate record, the picture has to have some vital input from the photographer. That input can be many things: choice of viewpoint, framing, careful exclusion of distractions, use of line, curve, pattern, shadow, colour, lighting whatever.
Click to expand...
Do you realise that you are defining entire catagories of Photography out of legitimate existence? Many of what all of us would call a great photograph is the spontanious recording of an event, in which the photographer happens to be there. A wedding photographer may set up his subjects, as do studio photographers - But many of us work with what is, and have no control of what happens.
DavidMillier said:
I have seen the most extraordinary flower shots for example, but without exception, not one of them was a straight record shot. The all showed artistry.

Flowers in the garden look nice, tempting subjects and modern equipment makes record shots a snap. So everyone does it - and there are millions of near identical record shots of flowers. Look at 3000 of them and you never want to see another.
Click to expand...
DavidMillier said:
Good flower shots on the other hand are much rarer. If you pull off a flower shot that looks like art, you've done well. Your bird shot has some artistry, it is not a plain record shot.
Click to expand...
I don't want to critcise my own work. But this shot is a product of technical skill (which anyone can acquire, and is not a "gift") )being joined to "being in the right place at the right time."

Dave
DavidMillier said:
--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/default.shtml
Click to expand...
 
mogmog said:
mogmog said:
Secondly, and much worse, his comments may prevent some who are a bit shy from posting any images, ever.
Click to expand...
Really? Why would one poster's opinion lead to multiple people never posting any images? The post will disappear over the course of a few weeks, I really don't think one person saying the didnt like some of the photos on the forum will be destructive, get some perspective!

On other forums I visit, on all sorts of topics, if work is posted which other contributors have improvements/critisms/suggestions, then those points are shared, and everyone deals with it well. There is much less of this 'politeness' than seems to often lead to medicrity.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a cop out from taking responsibility for the consequences of your comments. The thread may disappear off the bottom of the page quite soon, but the memory of it won't for much longer and for all those alpha males who seem to relish a "my ****'s bigger than your ****" slanging match, there will be just as many who are not so confident about their abilities and may well be inhibited about sharing their efforts.

It's a shame, because some interesting points were raised, but with all the subtlety of a kick in the groin. Politeness is obviously not a virtue in your eyes, but that doesn't stop it being a virtue to others.
 
Chato said:
DMillier said:
I don't think the subject has to be unique - on the contrary, often the subject is very common.

But to be good rather than an accurate record, the picture has to have some vital input from the photographer. That input can be many things: choice of viewpoint, framing, careful exclusion of distractions, use of line, curve, pattern, shadow, colour, lighting whatever.
Click to expand...
Do you realise that you are defining entire catagories of Photography out of legitimate existence? Many of what all of us would call a great photograph is the spontanious recording of an event, in which the photographer happens to be there. A wedding photographer may set up his subjects, as do studio photographers - But many of us work with what is, and have no control of what happens.
Click to expand...
I suppose you are correct. In saying that, a good deal of professional photography, whilst technically good is deathly dull. I include a lot of wedding work which I've seen, school photographs, product shots, stock shots and much else.

Not all of it of course, but a lot. So much so that pro photography looks very much like a job to me, not fun.

The photography I think of as photography rather than simply graft has composition as a key element. Of course, photography is much wider than this.
Chato said:
Chato said:
I have seen the most extraordinary flower shots for example, but without exception, not one of them was a straight record shot. The all showed artistry.

Flowers in the garden look nice, tempting subjects and modern equipment makes record shots a snap. So everyone does it - and there are millions of near identical record shots of flowers. Look at 3000 of them and you never want to see another.
Click to expand...
Chato said:
Good flower shots on the other hand are much rarer. If you pull off a flower shot that looks like art, you've done well. Your bird shot has some artistry, it is not a plain record shot.
Click to expand...
I don't want to critcise my own work. But this shot is a product of technical skill (which anyone can acquire, and is not a "gift") )being joined to "being in the right place at the right time."

Dave
Chato said:
--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/default.shtml
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/default.shtml
 
Except that from time to time we create art in the same way that someone can call what they find on the beach, as "Found Art."

We are Crafts People. We spend years learning the intricacies of this craft of ours, and by diligence and hard work, we create, (yes, even a crafts person "creates") beautiful results which like 'found art" can be considered art. But is the person who finds this art on the beach, or whereever an artist in the sense that a painter is an artist? I would say no. Sorry, no. :(

So, Mr. Miller points out to me:
DavidMillier said:
I have seen the most extraordinary flower shots for example, but without exception, not one of them was a straight record shot. The all showed artistry.
Click to expand...
DavidMillier said:
Flowers in the garden look nice, tempting subjects and modern equipment makes record shots a snap. So everyone does it - and there are millions of near identical record shots of flowers. Look at 3000 of them and you never want to see another.
Click to expand...
DavidMillier said:
Good flower shots on the other hand are much rarer. If you pull off a flower shot that looks like art, you've done well. Your bird shot has some artistry, it is not a plain record shot.
Click to expand...
And what he says is true. But is what he talking about creating Art, or using the skill of the craft, "recording art?"

Here is a scanned image from the Daily News of an artist also recording, but "creating" art. And I use the word creating because her work is worth a thousand of my photos. Her work makes me "feel" the place she is painting. Her work is not "faithful" to the scene except in the one sense, the important sense of placing me there, if making me feel what the scene is all about.



And I happened to be on the scene a few hours before the Daily News Reporter was, and I too took a shot. Unlike the reporter, I was recording the artist, while he was recording both her and the scene.



And I took a straight photograph of the place...



So, there in fact was only one artist and two crafts people ... :(

Dave
 
Chato said:
But the other shot was original. And will never be duplicated. I'm sure you can find thousands of good shots of a Little Blue Heron,
Click to expand...
Maybe ... but I think you are wrong. It sure looks special to me. Its not just a good shot. IMHO.
Chato said:
but you wont now, or EVER, find shots of Gizmo, Sherman and Chato in the same frame. And I suspect you'd have a hard time finding even comparable dogs in the same frame. :)
Click to expand...
Its special for you. But not for me. To me it looks like a not so good photo of three dogs. I dont know the dogs. And I am not in particular fond of dogs. Like cats better. They have better integrity.

--
Roland

support http://www.openraw.org/
(Sleeping - so the need to support it is even higher)

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html
 
Figsbury said:
Sounds like a cop out from taking responsibility for the consequences of your comments. The thread may disappear off the bottom of the page quite soon, but the memory of it won't for much longer and for all those alpha males who seem to relish a "my ****'s bigger than your ****" slanging match, there will be just as many who are not so confident about their abilities and may well be inhibited about sharing their efforts.

It's a shame, because some interesting points were raised, but with all the subtlety of a kick in the groin. Politeness is obviously not a virtue in your eyes, but that doesn't stop it being a virtue to others.
Click to expand...
Personally I rather discuss topics regarding photography, cameras, weather or whatever than discussing or criticizing other people on the forum.

But I feel I have to tell you this - that was a quite obvious self goal. Reread what you wrote. Was it polite?

--
Roland

support http://www.openraw.org/
(Sleeping - so the need to support it is even higher)

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html
 
Chato said:
Except that from time to time we create art in the same way that someone can call what they find on the beach, as "Found Art."

We are Crafts People. We spend years learning the intricacies of this craft of ours, and by diligence and hard work, we create, (yes, even a crafts person "creates") beautiful results which like 'found art" can be considered art. But is the person who finds this art on the beach, or whereever an artist in the sense that a painter is an artist? I would say no. Sorry, no. :(

So, Mr. Miller points out to me:
Chato said:
I have seen the most extraordinary flower shots for example, but without exception, not one of them was a straight record shot. The all showed artistry.
Click to expand...
Chato said:
Flowers in the garden look nice, tempting subjects and modern equipment makes record shots a snap. So everyone does it - and there are millions of near identical record shots of flowers. Look at 3000 of them and you never want to see another.
Click to expand...
Chato said:
Good flower shots on the other hand are much rarer. If you pull off a flower shot that looks like art, you've done well. Your bird shot has some artistry, it is not a plain record shot.
Click to expand...
And what he says is true. But is what he talking about creating Art, or using the skill of the craft, "recording art?"

Here is a scanned image from the Daily News of an artist also recording, but "creating" art. And I use the word creating because her work is worth a thousand of my photos. Her work makes me "feel" the place she is painting. Her work is not "faithful" to the scene except in the one sense, the important sense of placing me there, if making me feel what the scene is all about.



And I happened to be on the scene a few hours before the Daily News Reporter was, and I too took a shot. Unlike the reporter, I was recording the artist, while he was recording both her and the scene.



And I took a straight photograph of the place...



So, there in fact was only one artist and two crafts people ... :(

Dave
Click to expand...
And I would offer that:
  1. 1 ... I prefer your photo of the artist at work over the other published photo, since yours more clearly conveys the elements of information. Yours shows more of the tools the artist is using, and more immediately shows exactly what is going on. The first, published, photo takes a few seconds to understand the scene.
  1. 2 ... The only person who can legitimately define a product as "art" is the person producing it. If you should decide to, for example, call your own photo "art", then no one can refute your claim. All they can do is offer an opinion as to whether it's good, valid art, or not.
The debate about whether a photograph can be considered as art has been done to death over the years, and has been decided in favor of the affirmative by all but the most stubborn.

The key word is validity, and not composition, technique or any of the dozens of other desccriptive terms. And this isn't me talking out of my butt, as is usually the case, but is the opinion of those who make, and who have made, the Big Decisions about art.

--
"If they're not screaming at you to get out of the way, you're not close enough"

"Mongo not know ... Mongo just pawn in game of life." - Mongo

http://www.ChuckLantz.com
 
SigmaChrome said:
SigmaChrome said:
More interesting though is that his kindness is extended only to those using Sigma/Foveon cameras and no further. Obviously, he found us the most lost.
Click to expand...
SigmaChrome said:
Perhaps we are.
Click to expand...
Lost... what? Where am I anyway? What end of the camera do I look through...?
Click to expand...
Vitée;

I can't help you with that one, but if you find out, could you please share the info?

--
"If they're not screaming at you to get out of the way, you're not close enough"

"Mongo not know ... Mongo just pawn in game of life." - Mongo

http://www.ChuckLantz.com
 
Chuck Lantz said:
And I would offer that:
  1. 1 ... I prefer your photo of the artist at work over the other published photo, since yours more clearly conveys the elements of information. Yours shows more of the tools the artist is using, and more immediately shows exactly what is going on. The first, published, photo takes a few seconds to understand the scene.
Click to expand...
This is not fair to the reporter. His job was to show three elements, The Artist, what the artist was painting, AND the actual scene. He fulfilled his job perfectly. I wont directly compare the two photographs because I was photographing the artist.
Chuck Lantz said:
  1. 2 ... The only person who can legitimately define a product as "art" is the person producing it. If you should decide to, for example, call your own photo "art", then no one can refute your claim. All they can do is offer an opinion as to whether it's good, valid art, or not.
Click to expand...
This is the "If I put a frame around it, it's art" argument. And while reasonable people can debate this question, I personally, don't buy it.
Chuck Lantz said:
The debate about whether a photograph can be considered as art has been done to death over the years, and has been decided in favor of the affirmative by all but the most stubborn.
Click to expand...
Must be me... :(
Chuck Lantz said:
The key word is validity, and not composition, technique or any of the dozens of other desccriptive terms. And this isn't me talking out of my butt, as is usually the case, but is the opinion of those who make, and who have made, the Big Decisions about art.
Click to expand...
Everyones point of view has validity on this question. I beieve that "Found Art" is art. And the work of Photographers falls into the found art catagory.

By no means is this an argument to denigrate the skill of the craft. It takes years to reach a point where it's possible to make this kind of work. But let me point out something:

I can give a newbie a camera, and it's possible that the very first picture this person takes is going to be an astounding photograph. Is there any other form of artistic expression where this is possible? :D

Dave
 
mogmog said:
I really don't think one person saying the didnt like some of the photos on the forum will be destructive, get some perspective!
Click to expand...
My perspective regarding forums and discussion groups comes from over twelve years of professional involvement with building and managing them for various organizations. So, I know exactly what I am talking about regarding the effects of posts such as the ones you have written.

If you'd like to get into the exact details, I'd be happy to discuss it via email.

You can contact me at: [email protected]
 
Chato said:
Chuck Lantz said:
And I would offer that:
  1. 1 ... I prefer your photo of the artist at work over the other published photo, since yours more clearly conveys the elements of information. Yours shows more of the tools the artist is using, and more immediately shows exactly what is going on. The first, published, photo takes a few seconds to understand the scene.
Click to expand...
This is not fair to the reporter. His job was to show three elements, The Artist, what the artist was painting, AND the actual scene. He fulfilled his job perfectly. I wont directly compare the two photographs because I was photographing the artist.
Click to expand...
It's not about fairness; ... it's simply my opinion when comparing the two photos. As you mention, the reporter did include all the desired elements. But, in my own opinion, your shot did it a bit better. Others might rightfully disagree.
 
Figsbury said:
mogmog said:
Figsbury said:
Secondly, and much worse, his comments may prevent some who are a bit shy from posting any images, ever.
Click to expand...
Really? Why would one poster's opinion lead to multiple people never posting any images? The post will disappear over the course of a few weeks, I really don't think one person saying the didnt like some of the photos on the forum will be destructive, get some perspective!

On other forums I visit, on all sorts of topics, if work is posted which other contributors have improvements/critisms/suggestions, then those points are shared, and everyone deals with it well. There is much less of this 'politeness' than seems to often lead to medicrity.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a cop out from taking responsibility for the consequences of your comments. The thread may disappear off the bottom of the page quite soon, but the memory of it won't for much longer and for all those alpha males who seem to relish a "my ****'s bigger than your ****" slanging match, there will be just as many who are not so confident about their abilities and may well be inhibited about sharing their efforts.

It's a shame, because some interesting points were raised, but with all the subtlety of a kick in the groin. Politeness is obviously not a virtue in your eyes, but that doesn't stop it being a virtue to others.
Click to expand...
Nicely put.

...and I pray no one sees that as fawning.

--
"If they're not screaming at you to get out of the way, you're not close enough"

"Mongo not know ... Mongo just pawn in game of life." - Mongo

http://www.ChuckLantz.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top