Reading mode: Light Dark

More on photo quality

Go to last post
DMillier said:
No criticism of your photography intended Dave, nor complaints what you didn't do - comments were purely about the principles.

There doesn't seem much point in arguing infinitum about the same thing and I don't believe I did miss the point. I just don't feel the same way about paintings you do.

I've visited the National Gallery, the Tate, the National Portrait Gallery, museums and galleries abroad. I've seen many famous fine art paintings by the most famous painters. And I really don't care that much. Where others may see genius, I yawn.

It doesn't seem to matter, whether it da vinci, Rembrandt, Constable, Picasso, Turner, Manet, Monet, Gaugin, Dali, et al, modern or classic I really don't enjoy or appreciate it that much.

I can't draw or paint for toffee apples, I'd like to be able to, I'm sure it's fun and absorbing but looking at the stuff doesn't usually move me that much and indeed I actively dislike a great deal of it. I don't mind Hopper and I quite like trompe d'oeil, that can be fun, but the modern conceptual stuff leaves me cold as does the classic heavy, dark oils that seem to glow from some utterly unbelievable inner light. The majority of the museum pictures seem to be religiously inspired or historical famous person subjects, or landscapes or battles or symbolic stuff in which I have no interest. I simply prefer photos. If I like painting at all, it probably is graphic, commercial stuff.
Click to expand...
We can certainly agree to disagree. :)

I can't draw to save my life... :(

Do you know that many of the photographs you linked to would be regarded as boring by many? "I can't see the guy on the bike, WTF is this all about? You call this a photograph?"

While I like many "realistic" paintings, I find some of them boring. But take a look at the work of David... :)

The Death of Socrates



Sketch - The Tennis Court Oath



Dave
 
stanislaw stitchanow said:
the place where you really get a feed back for a shown picture is not made yet nor even taking the time to write sonething useful, like why they like it it or why not. Instead there is just" wow, et. all" written I think thats also a problem.

Many are consuming fast, do not take the time for a picture and because of that, those HDR Effects super saturated Landscape pictures are on the net. To get a few seconds more to look on, as they are uncommon.

But to get a real feedback is really very very seldom, mostly it is wow, great or useless stuff like that. It does not help to develop the own photography it can even halt the developement and cause a status quo, becuase one can think everything is nice and fine because of the ohs and ahs.
Click to expand...
The logic behind is, as the more advanced photographer you won't profit from the critics of the less skilled. As you get matured in life there is the point where you wonder why there is nobody anymore who advises you what to do. That is the point where you better become really independent... Be grateful if people take the time to notice your work, even if it is only for a glance...
 
stanislaw stitchanow said:
I agree totally with you.
I normally do not post any pictures in this forum as many others as well.

It is a toys forum not about pictures, so I would not suspect top rated pictures here, as in all other forums on dpreview.
Click to expand...
In what category fall, e.g., Steve Chongs pictures?
 
spalbird said:
Do you mean this (extraordinary)?
http://www.flickr.com/groups/875262@N21/pool/

or that (outstanding)?
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=outstanding%20photography

as I'm puzzled :/
Click to expand...
Naaahhh ... the second link I dont find interesting at all and the first link ... maybe ... but are they photography.

Whatever ... you have to keep on searching I would say.

--
Roland

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

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html
 
Quality is a matter of any person's POV. Some would like what 99% people considering to be junk or vise versas.

The question is why do we photograph? To make us happy or to seek someone else approval?

Is the photograph consider an art or craft, either way they are subjective on the quality.

The out of focus and most critics consider poorly compose but the subject/s is/are the one that we hold dearly, then that photograph is a verygood one for that person. Are you going to deny that person the joy of that photograph by telling him/her that the photo is junk?
Seriously, we are all different and have different approach to our photography.

Some of us would ponder and would not photograph anything until the perfect condition occurs...i.e perfect camera, perfect light perfect subject and so on.

Some of us just love the experience of photographing itself and will do at any conditions.
Neither is right or wrong.

Personally, I would rather go out and make bad pictures than sit around backhanded complimenting someones' photographs/work.

If you would rather to anylize other person work that's fine too...it is your time.

Here is my rather poor photograph that I did went out and do something, I am happy with that and anyone else approval is not required or requested.
Have a nice weekend everyone :)



Oh yes, the crappy flower shot too with a lot of things wrong with it:



s
--
'Life is fragile, too short, and flys by
If you let it
So choose what you want every day
and go get it'
-Anonymous
 
To save time and effort, I have decided it is time to finsih this thread off.

Towards that end, I, being duly described as an "artist" (by my parents, after I presented them with a clay flower pot I had created in Kindergarten), do hereby declare that everything created by everyone since the dawn of recorded history is to be considered, officially, as "art".

There. It is done, and I am glad of it.

I hereby assign the responsibility for mounting and framing all of it to others.

Signed: me

--
"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
 
It's a fine photograph - well exposed, well framed.

For me, it is also a bit obvious. First, it's a photograph of a photograph. Second I think it's a common strategy to sit in front of a billboard and take shots of people's reactions to it. Nothing wrong with that. But there's a lot this photograph doesn't accomplish, such as developing the characters of all those folks with their back to us.

It does make a social comment, about photographers, and the attention-getting quality of attractive female anatomy. I guess a goofy follow up to this photo would be if tilting up, we saw the heads turned and some of the women were men. That's how this type of photo is used these days, in movies, and advertising.
 
I forgot to add - It's not worse than many of the flower pictures - but flower pictures are often about the equipment, using flowers as test subjects. Flowers also, like fish and butterflies have colors that are both intense and subtle, and shadows, all of which challenge the color sensibility of the photographer. The petals have a certain texture, which often contrasts with drops of water or dew on the flower. All of this is a good challenge for a camera and a photographer.

I do agree there is something else, that someone can do something creative with what's in front of the camera. I have seen that on this site. It would be nice to see more. The Flemish and Spanish painters made flowers a genre that had a lot to say about life.
 
Note: I said "almost always", because I recognize your point, and it has happened to me too, as in the shot below:



The fox came out of nowhere. Read the caption I posted with the shot: http://www.pbase.com/vitee/image/115916952

I was very happy that I managed to shoot this photo. I don't think it's great or deserves to be published, but it did make my day.

Most of the best photos we see are planned, although reportage is often in a separate category. War produces images of unique and often heroic or horrific situations, but the photographer still must be able to actually capture them and therefore must know his/her equipment inside out, and be able to focus and expose accurately - kinda goes without saying. We will never see the OOF or under/over exposed shots.
Chato said:
Chato said:
Good art - of any kind - almost always takes time and planning. Sometimes you can be lucky, like when a WWII Spitfire flies into your snap-shot of the White Cliffs of Dover, but that hardly ever happens. The rest of the time it's work, practice, planning, learning how to use your equipment, understanding composition, lighting, people and many of sundry bits of information.
Click to expand...
Point me to a painting that is a matter of accident and luck, as is the iconic photograph of the flag raising at Iwo Jima?

Mr. Rosenberg was a skilled photographer. He planned the shot at Iwo Jima, He placed his subjects, organized the event, and none of us remember ANY of those images.

The one We remember is the one that he simply turned around and fired, with no planning, and no vision.

Do me a favor and post a link to a comparable painting?

Dave
Click to expand...
--
Regards,

Vitée

Capture all the light and colour!



http://www.pbase.com/vitee/galleries
 
Hi Roland

Glad you are not one of the golden eared brigade. I spent some time a couple of years ago working with a high end hifi designer (he has his own company now building extremely high quality speakers but for many years he designed all of NAD's amplifiers before working for Dolby Labs) and he had some interesting thoughts on amps and hifi fans.

Basically, summed it up as "there is no further work to do on amplifier design, it's all been done and as long as an amp is properly designed there are no significant gains to be made, whilst loudspeakers still offer big challenges". As for hifi fans and their obsessions, he would just roll his eyes.

By the way, the classic NAD 3020 budget amp is still in production today, decades later. Of course it is no longer called the 3020 and it is no longer made by NAD but the design simply hasn't been improved upon for the money so it still regularly used as a stealth design in different cases and under different brands.

Oh, and something that is rarely if ever talked about by hifi fans too busy putting silver foils under their turntables is the single most influential component - the listening room. The difference between £100 loudspeakers and £10,000 speakers is nothing compared to the average room and a specially designed listening room. You just have to hear the difference suppressing the typically 45dB upper bass peak present in most rooms makes. And getting rid of the time delayed resonances. And the high frequency reverberrations. And as doing that requires re-building your home it's not surprised it's largely ignored by an industry that specialises in selling smoke and mirrors to credulous fools who are essentially faithheads and wishful thinkers.

The buyers will never admit it but the manufacturers are laughing at their own customers. And to think the hifi industry was founded by engineers who cared passionately about fidelity, too. How things have fallen...

--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/default.shtml
 
here's a point, you (DMillier) wrote quote
even if it wasn't half as much fun as here.

end quote

exactly, you guys are looking for photo 'art', critique, Seriousness, while probably many here (myself included) are primarily interested in sharing their places and views of the world.

I LOVE the photos shared here from around the world: places I haven't been to, won't ever go to, things I won't ever do. Alternately, different views on places and subjects I do know. I love florals.... I'm not looking for Art or Serious Photography daily..... I'm looking for glimpses into others' worlds.

Learning more about the Sigma cameras and lenses is very positive too.

I try to learn something each time I go out to take photos. Maybe some responding here are a bit too Serious about Art. Or we're seeking different things. There should be room for all... beginners and less Serious Photos shouldn't be mocked.

Best regards, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman (archival)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann (current)
 
SigmaChrome said:
Note: I said "almost always", because I recognize your point, and it has happened to me too, as in the shot below:
Click to expand...
SigmaChrome said:
The fox came out of nowhere. Read the caption I posted with the shot: http://www.pbase.com/vitee/image/115916952
Click to expand...
Cute shot. Has some technical problems of a minor nature....
SigmaChrome said:
I was very happy that I managed to shoot this photo. I don't think it's great or deserves to be published, but it did make my day.
Click to expand...
Would have made mine too... :)
SigmaChrome said:
Most of the best photos we see are planned, although reportage is often in a separate category.
Click to expand...
This is waaaay too broad an assertion. Sure, obviously fashion or studio photographers plan their work. Architectural photographers "plan their shots." Sports and wildlife photographers plan for their day. Street photographers plan their walks..

But no one is planning on creating something new.

This morning, I was out and noticed that that, oh so attractive green of spring trees was shading the old Cooper Union building. A scene I've alrady shot a number of times; I shot it again with different light. :)

This is an example of learning my craft. :)
SigmaChrome said:
War produces images of unique and often heroic or horrific situations, but the photographer still must be able to actually capture them and therefore must know his/her equipment inside out, and be able to focus and expose accurately - kinda goes without saying. We will never see the OOF or under/over exposed shots.
Click to expand...
Where in this thread did I say that we who have learned and learning this craft, or you could say, the art of photography don't need to know their tools? Can I put in a boiler without knowing my "equpment inside out?" Frank Capras "Falling Soldier" is another iconic image that just happened. Many great images just happen. We who learn our craft magnify the chances of being in the right place at the right time. I can't post any Egret pictures, if I'm not out looking for Egrets.

All of this is highly skilled work. This is not a dissussion where one side says, Photography is all dumb luck... :)

I'm a photographer. I record and some times alter reality. But I don't "create," I record. An artist creates. I might, within the boundries of my craft be better at what I do then this or that artist - But I am not an artist. And that statement is not a put-down of what I or you, or anyone else does.

Dave
 
Even top class stuff is boring to one person and thrilling to the next, it's called personal taste. Your links which I assume are supposed to illustrate paintings you approve of, are just about perfect examples of paintings that send me instantly to sleep. My tastes run to extremely minimalist, graphic style, not all this fussy, messy, complicated stuff. Wouldn't have pictures like that in my house, even they are worth £60 milliion a-piece ;-)

Hockney is OK but almost like photos, anyway.

I guess key thing is being able to tell the difference between a quality picture that you don't happen to like and a mediocre one you don't like ;-)

Here's a few photos I consider sublime, probably bore most people to tears, but that's personal preferences for you. It's a good job we all like different things else there would only be one picture!

























--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/default.shtml
 
DMillier said:
Even top class stuff is boring to one person and thrilling to the next, it's called personal taste. Your links which I assume are supposed to illustrate paintings you approve of, are just about perfect examples of paintings that send me instantly to sleep.
Click to expand...
How truly fortunate you are. Go out, buy one of these classic books of paintings, and you'll never suffer from insomnia... :)
DavidMillier said:
My tastes run to extremely minimalist, graphic style, not all this fussy, messy, complicated stuff. Wouldn't have pictures like that in my house, even they are worth £60 milliion a-piece ;-)
Click to expand...
If I had such a valuble painiting, the time it remained in my home would simply be the time required to find someone to fork over the money... :)
DavidMillier said:
Hockney is OK but almost like photos, anyway.

I guess key thing is being able to tell the difference between a quality picture that you don't happen to like and a mediocre one you don't like ;-)

Here's a few photos I consider sublime, probably bore most people to tears, but that's personal preferences for you. It's a good job we all like different things else there would only be one picture!
Click to expand...
I like about half of them. The other half would put me right to sleep. While I don't have a problem sleeping, perhaps this is incentive to buy books of photographs that put me to sleep?

What someone else likes or dislikes has never been, and hopefully never will be a criteria for judging them. How can I make someone "like" taramusaltta salad spread. How can someone make me like sweet potatoes? Some people of course never learn the above. "There's something wrong with that other guy who dislikes what I like." :)

But there is of course a difference between me or you being bored to tears by a photograph or art form, and rejecting the legitimacy of that photograph or art form. I can absolutely state only that I don't care for something, I cannot make such an absolute claim of it's legitimacy. But we can demand that anything created must show the skills that created it, even if such skills are that of recognition; of the eye alone. To my mind, and my opinion, photography is more about the skill of recognition, and the implementing of that recognition, not the skills of creation.

Dave
DavidMillier said:
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/default.shtml
Click to expand...
 
Chato said:
On the other hand, an appropriate end to that video would have been a team of Commandoes, blowing that bouncing dweeb into the next universe. :(
Click to expand...
hehe ... isnt it annoying?

But is it art?

Just to round it off .. another one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxEkDkvDVPk

... and maybe another one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3xM84AfKzM

--
Roland

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

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Am I leaving photography behind?
Replies
4
Views
7K
DM-CO
D
Mathew Anderson
  • Featured
  • Photo Photo
DPR Update XenForo pre-launch FAQ
4 5 6
Replies
118
Views
351K
Andy01
Andy01
Martin Ocando
Considering a bold change
3 4 5
Replies
85
Views
45K
Martin Ocando
Martin Ocando
ProfHankD
I would go 500mm and I would go 500 more
Replies
1
Views
53K
Tom Caldwell
T
M
Macro extension tubes (without any glass) are not as innocuous as I thoughtted.
Replies
3
Views
9K
jim mij
jim mij

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