Re: Corrupt card or camera?
1
Scottelly wrote:
Joris1632 wrote:
Scottelly wrote:
Joris1632 wrote:
Scottelly wrote:
adegroot wrote:
I have shots thousands of pictures on this card before; it's possible that it was operator error that caused an issue. It seems to work fine now. Perhaps I turned off the camera off at the wrong moment while it was still writing to the card, causing a problem for subsequent shots; I'll stop doing that until a few seconds after the red light goes off totally.
No . . . it won't. lol
Likewise, in the hands of a skilled, inspired, and patient photographer with a keen eye, almost any subject matter can be approached and shot to become (or at least look like) a great work of art.
The vacant lot next door? A work of art? REALLY?
Yes! The subject is just a hook that the photographer/artist hangs his vision on ....
Hey . . . there's a reason the best photographers in the World travel to the most beautiful and grand places in the World and/or work with supermodels when they shoot their greatest photos.
Sorry Scott but I find that a staggeringly naive statement on many levels ......
I'd be interested to know your thoughts on this George. A friend of mine keeps telling me I need to shoot some not-so-good looking models, and I tell him I already did that, and frankly, people don't want to look at photos of old rusty Toyotas, but brand new Ferraris. That doesn't seem to agree with your thinking though, I suspect . . . though I think you might know I'm right.
My main issue is that I think you are confusing popularity and commercial success with greatness. I spent many years making fashion drawings (from my own photos) and visualising advertising campaigns to be photographed by others. A world of young and beautiful people and totally unreal. Highly paid and highly professional. On a shoot would be the photographer's assistants, an art director, various stylists, an account executive or perhaps more client's reps,- a whole team dedicated to seducing the public into buying, buying. "Great" ???
Yes. Great. Just like Star Wars was great, even though it was done to make money . . . and just like Gone With The Wind was great, even though THAT movie was made to make money too . . . and just like the Mona Lisa was made for money (Leonardo surely painted Francesco del Giocondo's wife for money, because he was most likely paid to do the job of painting that portrait of her - "The painting is thought to have been commissioned for their new home, and to celebrate the birth of their second son, Andrea." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Lisa ).
https://www.quora.com/How-many-years-did-it-take-to-paint-the-Mona-Lisa wikipedia does not tell the truth, the whole truth and mothing but the truth ....
Just because a great work was made to make money does not make it not great. Did you know that Michelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel ceiling to make money?
No! I most certainly did not. But I do know a lot about Renaissance Art The 40 year struggle with Pope Julius over the Tomb and Chapel is legendary:-https://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/arts/artwork/michelangelo-biography3.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sistine_Chapel_ceiling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sistine_Chapel
My belief has always been that one of the best ways to upgrade your photography is to upgrade your cameras, lenses, prints, and subject matter. The rest is up to you, as the photographer. At that point it is your ability and luck that will make the photos better. If you don't agree with this, I'd love to get your input about it. Maybe that will help me learn to be a better photographer.
I also believe that almost anyone can become a better photographer. I agree with Yanni's statement that if you have passion for something you will develop the talent. "All you need is passion . . . If you have a passion for something, you’ll create the talent."
But then there's Steve Chong, who says, "It is not what you see, but the way you see it."
I like Edison's mantra - " genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration" but both statements above would apply, talent is not a shortcut for hard work.
Is that what you believe George?
Scott, for the last 10 years or so health issues have severely limited my mobility. Not complaining, in fact, as my world has shrunk I've learned to appreciate what surrounds me all the more. https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43650/auguries-of-innocence
"It's a good life if you don't weaken - but a better one if you do!" .
Interesting, and it seems a lot like introspection, meditation, even finding one's self. Some change jobs or travel to Tibet, while others endure the trials of life . . . which normally involves loss - sometimes great loss (a lost fortune or a lost loved one, or lost freedom . . . similar to your own loss, I imagine).
My "loss" ? I've simply learned that the grass on the other side of the fence isn't greener, it's just further away .........
Anyway, it seems to me that just because something is popular does not mean it is not great. Would we think of Ansel Adams as possibly the greatest photographer of all time if he had not gone to some of the most famous places and photographed them with his large format cameras? I wonder. Yes, he did much more than just shooting photos . . . developing the zone system, teaching, and even writing books. But ultimately it was his greatest photographs that convinced people those books were worth buying, right? It was his work (photos mostly) that made people want to learn from him, right? Today there is another photographer who is often compared to Ansel Adams . . . mainly because he shoots landscapes in black and white, but also because he uses large format cameras and maybe has a similar style to Ansel Adams. His name is Clyde Butcher, and he travels far and wide, though he has become famous mostly for his photos of the Everglades. I think if he just shot photos in the vacant lot next door his work would not only lack the breadth of interesting material he captures, but it would certainly be less popular. No? He has photographed extremely rare flowers, and he has found views of beautiful places. This is the way most famous photographers become famous. Peter Lik would not be able to sell his prints the way he does, supporting more than a dozen galleries, if all he shot was the vacant lot next door and other boring places. People want to see beautiful and interesting things that they can't see themselves every day. That's why they buy prints from him. His photos are special, just as the photos from those photographers you describe are beautiful . . . even though what they are doing might not be so beautiful to you. I find the greatest advertising photos to be some of the most beautiful photos in the World. They are created by some of the best photographers, working with some of the most expensive equipment, with teams of people, and their photos are then worked on by some of the most creative and talented image processing specialists in the World. Why SHOULDN'T those photos be considered great?
Scott, I'm afraid there's an unbridgeable chasm between our philosophies and each to his own, but please check facts ...
Best Wishes,
George
