Reading mode: Light Dark

A rash of poor photography

Go to last post
Sean

Thanks for the tips I dug up with a forum search on building a PS action to do the job of Quantum Mechanic. Very useful!

But this comment was a bit rash, don't you think? Perhaps you didn't read the original post as carefully as you could have? I consider it thought provoking even if I don't entirely agree...

Regards

Dave Millier
Sean Keegan said:
Regards,
Sean
Chuck A said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Yeah, I had just participated in one of those stupid politcal threads... I know I know... stupid of me and I was still a bit steamed when I read this one, so I overreacted. I do that too often. I just hate people blaming a tool for the proliferation of poor skills. Digital cameras have empowered true artists, and is not used as a crutch. This kind of nonsense has been spouted throughout photographic history. "Oh my I would never use an AF camera! Where is the skill in that! Use a TTL flash?! Why I never!"

How is it ever bad to make something easier? Because now your little club is no longer exclusive to you alone? (you in genreal... not directed at anyone) Taking a photo, even if the camera does all the technical aspects of the photo still takes skill and an eye and still can produce bad photos.

Regards,
Sean
DMillier said:
Thanks for the tips I dug up with a forum search on building a PS
action to do the job of Quantum Mechanic. Very useful!

But this comment was a bit rash, don't you think? Perhaps you
didn't read the original post as carefully as you could have? I
consider it thought provoking even if I don't entirely agree...

Regards

Dave Millier
Sean Keegan said:
Regards,
Sean
Chuck A said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You are right, it was not necessary. Sorry... I mean that. I still disagree with you though ;).

Sincerely,
Sean
Chuck A said:
Sean Keegan said:
Digital has improved most people's photography because of the
instant feedback. Digitial cameras are the ultimate photography
teaching tool. So what that more people can now take as many photos
as they want. The cream always rises to the top as they say. Take
your anti-digital views somewhere else!

Regards,
Sean
Click to expand...
Why is it necessary that you call me an idiot. I didn't express any
ant-digital views. Just anti poor photography. In fact I sold all
of my film stuff to get into digital.

It's pretty funny how people will write things that they would
never say to your face.

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

'Our actions are the demonstration of our character'
Click to expand...
 
Great post!!!

As a lover of trance music, as well as a musician (Saxaphone) it bothers me when people claim trance music is just music made by a computer. A new tool usually just means another way to express oneself... and the keyboard and computer and digital camera are all nothing but tools. It comes down to the person behind the tool to really create something special. Now if someone does not like trance music, fine.... everyone has different tastes... but to dislike it because they think it is nothing more than a computer making the music is just plain stupid.

Not to mention I am also a 3D modeler/animator and it bothers me to no end when people think the computer did all the work... (mostly traditional artists think this way).

Regards,
Sean
snoopygirl said:
Hey, I'm certainly guilty of a bad photo or two myself and it seems
to me that cameras like the p&s sony thing are designed
specifically to produce a terrible photo but ...

I am a bit of a musician. I write music and have been in bands
ranging from punk rock and industrial to the Chicago Symphony
training orchestra (first violin, thankyouverymuch). I remember
VIVIDLY when suddenly anybody could get a keyboard which would
produce an 'orchestra' of sound. People were shouting "It's the
end of good music" and "Now anybody can do it" ... then along came
computer programs which take it a hundred steps further. Decent
percussion programming, etc. Still, no real plethora of emerging
brilliance. Just great musicians learning to adapt the new
technology to their material and a handful who might not have
otherwise been musicians who found talent they didn't realise they
had. Oh ... and a BUNCH of hobbyists.

It's the same thing all over again.
Click to expand...
 
Chuck A said:
Good article. It talks about some of the ideas in my original post,
but does it much more eloquently and sensitively than I ever could
have.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-june-04.shtml
Click to expand...
Yeah, Chuck, the article is pretty good...and in many ways a restatement of your original point. Oh, and I say that as a, um, "landscape photographer".

It's kinda funny how defensive people can get over this kind of matter, even while they might be saying elsewhere, "Please help me become a better photographer".

But to other hand it, people should take photographs they like to look at. ...If they are doing that, anyway.

Then they might start down the path of improving their photography, in ways that are significant to them, if they really try to cull their posts to what they feel their best examples are. That can be eye-opening...and a learning experience. And I think that was some of the point Mike was making.

And if they don't? Maybe the photography of those that do cull starts looking a tad better in comparison.

My best,

Ed

--
http://www.blackmallard.com/cal_ls/
California Light and Structure

http://www.blackmallard.com/o_barn/
One Barn
 
You know what, really who cares. If taking those so called poor photos makes someone happy what is it of anyones business.

Let them take as many pictures as they desire. They have to learn somehow. Some will progress some won't and will drop out.

Anyways thats my take on it.

http://www.aperture.ca - Vancouver BC photography forums.

http://www.evolver.ca - My portfolio
Chuck A said:
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'

Click to expand...
--
http://www.aperture.ca
http://www.usefilm.com/photographer/14506.html
 
It would be so much better if people didn't just automatically say "Nice shot". I've seen way too much junk that has that kind of reply. I just shake my head and move on. Occasionally, I'll comment, but any negative comments, even given politely, open you up to the flames.

If people new their posts would REALLY get critiqued, there would be far fewer OOF shots of birds, ordinary cat shots, and "pictures" with slanted horizons. As it stands, people will post anything.

Ted

--
Good photography comes with experience. Experience comes from bad photography.

TJB



My Website: http://svphoto.us
 
Ted B.47613 said:
Ted B.47613 said:
Occasionally, I'll comment, but any negative comments, even given politely, open you up to the flames.> >
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
You don't need to respond to the flame throwers. And does it matter if some people flame you when others might get some real benefit in the form of extra enjoyment of their photography from what you're saying?

How could anyone object to you saying: "I think that shot would be improved if you...."? Only trolls will flame that kind of response.
Ted B.47613 said:
If people knew their posts would REALLY get critiqued, there would
be far fewer OOF shots of birds, ordinary cat shots, and "pictures"
with slanted horizons. As it stands, people will post anything.> >
Click to expand...
That's like saying contemporary society has made having no pride or consideration for the views of others into a virtue because thats what most people now have.

And, yes, I'm comfortable with people posting what they like because the internet is a sharing community and we all have to start somewhere. A 'nice' shot can be of interest for many reasons other than being exhibition standard or a competition winner particularly if it shows how a camera handles distant images, motion, fringing and noise etc.

If anything, a really good photograph gets a chance to stand out even more prominently.

John.
Visitors welcome to browse
http://www.pbase.com/johnfr/galleries
 
Ed Leys said:
Chuck A said:
Good article. It talks about some of the ideas in my original post,
but does it much more eloquently and sensitively than I ever could
have.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-june-04.shtml
Click to expand...
Yeah, Chuck, the article is pretty good...and in many ways a
restatement of your original point. Oh, and I say that as a, um,
"landscape photographer".

It's kinda funny how defensive people can get over this kind of
matter, even while they might be saying elsewhere, "Please help me
become a better photographer".

But to other hand it, people should take photographs they like to
look at. ...If they are doing that, anyway.

Then they might start down the path of improving their photography,
in ways that are significant to them, if they really try to cull
their posts to what they feel their best examples are. That can
be eye-opening...and a learning experience. And I think that was
some of the point Mike was making.

And if they don't? Maybe the photography of those that do cull
starts looking a tad better in comparison.

My best,

Ed

--
http://www.blackmallard.com/cal_ls/
California Light and Structure

http://www.blackmallard.com/o_barn/
One Barn
Click to expand...
Ed,

I agree. Very nice photo site BTW.

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

'Our actions are the demonstration of our character'
 
Chuck A said:
Ed Leys said:
Chuck A said:
Good article. It talks about some of the ideas in my original post,
but does it much more eloquently and sensitively than I ever could
have.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-june-04.shtml
Click to expand...
Yeah, Chuck, the article is pretty good...and in many ways a
restatement of your original point. Oh, and I say that as a, um,
"landscape photographer".

It's kinda funny how defensive people can get over this kind of
matter, even while they might be saying elsewhere, "Please help me
become a better photographer".

But to other hand it, people should take photographs they like to
look at. ...If they are doing that, anyway.

Then they might start down the path of improving their photography,
in ways that are significant to them, if they really try to cull
their posts to what they feel their best examples are. That can
be eye-opening...and a learning experience. And I think that was
some of the point Mike was making.

And if they don't? Maybe the photography of those that do cull
starts looking a tad better in comparison.

My best,

Ed
Click to expand...
Ed,

I agree. Very nice photo site BTW.
Click to expand...
Thanks Chuck.

I used to be an average photographer. But the advent of the internet and digital cameras have improved me tremendously...I have a much better perception of "average". :^)

My best,

Ed

--
http://www.blackmallard.com/cal_ls/
California Light and Structure

http://www.blackmallard.com/o_barn/
One Barn
 
jase said:
jase said:
exposed to affordable and readily available serious photography
equipment
Click to expand...
An EOS1 is serious photography equipment and an EOS1V body
$1639.95, EOS Rebel body $169 now look up the prices for the
equivalent digital bodies.

Millions of people are exposed to the outrageous cost of cameras
that are no more capable than the film equivalents but are being
charged a fortune for the digital convenience. I love the digital
thing but the price of this stuff really winds me up.
Click to expand...
And a mid-range Canon P&S digital is $350 or so, you can easily take enough photos in a year or two to justify it, especially if you get over the "it's just the cat, it's not worth $.50 to take a picture of" feelings.

People, even snapshooters, are getting many more keepers per click than with film because they know when it worked. Even if they have no skill they can recognize a properly exposed (at least to show the subject they're looking at) photo.

My mom took a roll and a half of film on a trip to Hawaii before. This trip she took my old Canon G2 and took 250ish photos - after deleting the duds on-camera. There were no throw-aways and six times a many shots overall. She went from having a few good pictures suitable for 5x7s to having 100+ photos worthy of printing at 8x10 and good enough to do so.
 
is your opinion of what is art the be all end all opinion?

is it your way or the highway?

who do you think you are?

it is art, its opinion, you don't really have the merit to talk down on anyones opinion - nobody does

you can't simply call someones photo bad

what one thinks of as art is different from person to person

again - get off your high horse; you dont have the right to call anyones opinion wrong
 
woodo said:
is your opinion of what is art the be all end all opinion?

is it your way or the highway?

who do you think you are?

it is art, its opinion, you don't really have the merit to talk
down on anyones opinion - nobody does

you can't simply call someones photo bad

what one thinks of as art is different from person to person

again - get off your high horse; you dont have the right to call
anyones opinion wrong
Click to expand...
That's pretty funny. But you have the right to call my opinions wrong. You just did. Anyway get over it. Contrary to popular opinion there are bad photos. I have taken more than my share. It is what you do with them that counts.

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

'Our actions are the demonstration of our character'
 
William Night said:
And a mid-range Canon P&S digital is $350 or so, you can easily
take enough photos in a year or two to justify it, especially if
you get over the "it's just the cat, it's not worth $.50 to take a
picture of" feelings.

People, even snapshooters, are getting many more keepers per click
than with film because they know when it worked. Even if they have
no skill they can recognize a properly exposed (at least to show
the subject they're looking at) photo.

My mom took a roll and a half of film on a trip to Hawaii before.
This trip she took my old Canon G2 and took 250ish photos - after
deleting the duds on-camera. There were no throw-aways and six
times a many shots overall. She went from having a few good
pictures suitable for 5x7s to having 100+ photos worthy of printing
at 8x10 and good enough to do so.
Click to expand...
Your point is has absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying. If you read again you will notice that I was giving my opinion on the statement

"SO many more MILLIONS of people are exposed to affordable and readily available serious photography equipment " The mid range Canon P&S that you mention is not serious photography equipment"
 
... before your tirade the other night.

There sure is bad art, but the problem is - it varies by the viewer! I know art collectors that think Pollack and Rothko are junky rip offs, some (otherwize normal people) consider Bob Ross a god and while everyone knows all of Warhol's work was total carp, they do seem to sell for a lot. Same/same when it comes to photography, like an old-guy-photographer friend of mine, thinks Ansel Adams stinks. And many think Henri Cartier-Bresson was it for street photography, I think Weegee had ten times more talent.

I often do the opposite of popular art, so a lot of my painting and photography is what's known as "bad art".

One thing I do especially get complaints: Sometimes I just hold the camera out, without aiming and start pushing the button at random, which I could never afford to do in proper volumes wih film. It almost always results in a bunch of terrible photos - out of focus, heads cut off, motion - you name it. My girlfriend especially hates, I mean HATES, it when I do that, that really makes me suffer. But I do it anyway, cause it's uh, ... art.
Chuck A said:
[...] Contrary to popular
opinion there are bad photos. I have taken more than my share. It
is what you do with them that counts.

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

'Our actions are the demonstration of our character'
Click to expand...
--
http://radio.weblogs.com/0101365/categories/photos/
 
And it was the same for Modigliani and a lot of others.
Your point is made, Lorraine :-)

CU
Y
Lorraine said:
Lorraine
xenon101 said:
Lorraine said:
never sold a painting in his life if I remember correctly. Who's to
say who's an artist?

Lorraine
Click to expand...
Picasso was quite successful selling his art so, you don't remember
correctly. Perhaps you were thinking of Van Gogh?
Click to expand...
--
UZI'er
Click to expand...
--

And God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light. God saw the light was good, and he seperated the light into ten zones.
 
Chuck A said:
[snip...] I am talking
about people who are proudly posting poor photographs as art on
websites.....[snip....]
Click to expand...
Wandering rapidly through photosites, I will cross attractive and promising sites. Then, that site will be bookmarked, but left alone for a while. When I am in such a mood, I return to enjoy the pics there closely, one by one, taking my time. We have only to learn to select and manage huge amounts of pictures, just as other info.
Hans
 
Surely you're not suggesting that the advent of digital photography has been a bad thing? (sorry, I have not read the rest of this thread)

Once I met a woman at a wedding and making small-talk, I asked her what she did. She said she was (something typical) and an "amateur photographer". I laughed and said "aren't we all??"

If they made a digital K1000, I'd buy it. All I'd need is a white balance control, and selectable ISO. I don't need landscape or portrait modes, I know what aperture does. I don't need a sports mode, I know what shutter speed does. I don't need a histogram, I know a balanced composition when I see one. I don't need AiAF, I know how to focus and recompose. (although servo-AF would be nice)
-Jack
 
You're totally wrong!

Sure, more people are going to be snapping more pictures, that is a given. But so many more people ARE going to learn what aperture is and how to take better pictures BECAUSE of digital.

I'll wager that the signal/noise ratio of the world of photography will only increase with the proliferation of digital. People who wouldn't be able to afford to experiment and improve with film, now can.
 
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