Is this proof of, "It's the photographer"?

Started Aug 10, 2014 | Discussions
jkoch2
jkoch2 Senior Member • Posts: 1,198
Factors besides talent matter too

Sheer technical skills or sense of beauty don't bear fruit on their own.  Success or recognition also depend on:

  1. Invincible obsession or ego.   Hide thicker than an elephant's.  Otherwise, there is no chance of withstanding the blistering criticism sure to come from skeptics or jealous rivals.  Think of the prevalence of creepy, rotten, or dismissive comments that greet nearly any photo samples posted a DPR.  Of course, resolute stubborness or mile-high pride can lead to failure too.
  2. A sense of others' tastes.    Works must represent things, places, events, or phenomena that people with money find interesting, whether that be the fairy gardens of Thomas Kinkade or the Water Wigs Women of Tim Tadder.  You are in big trouble if you exhibit cat photos at a gathering of dog breeders, or try to impress an NFL fan with pictures of soccer players.
  3. A viable Plan B.  Since photography or any artsy endeavor can be very risky or yield little, any person with good technical or aesthetic wizardry can probably pursue some other practical or in-demand careeer and prosper. 
Gerry Winterbourne Forum Pro • Posts: 15,411
Re: Is this proof of, "It's the photographer"?

tbcass wrote:

When someone is concentrating on examining minor technical aspects of a photo at 100% on screen while ignoring the photo as a whole it's a good indication that they consider the technical more important.

For that particular shot at that particular moment, perhaps; but it gives no indication whatsoever of their general attitude to which is more important - or even if they actually think one more important, as opposed to being equal-value components of the whole.

When I compose my own photos I concentrate on the composition (which ought to be self evident, of course); but I also have regard to the technical things like DOF, exposure etc. I frequently take several similar shots with slightly different emphases.

When I come to process my shots I include 100% viewing to make sure I've got the best possible results. I can't possibly assess the whole photo while doing that so I have to concentrate on what bit I can see. Someone looking over my shoulder at that moment would be at risk of the sort of misconception you seem to suffer.

Of course it's possible to appreciate a photo at both levels but when someone posts a photo to be critiqued and someone else criticizes it for some minor flaw visible at only 100% it makes me suspicious as to what is more important to them.

Why? If I critique a picture that's technically good but poorly composed I comment on the composition (and how it might be improved). If I critique a picture that's well-composed but technically poor I comment on the technique (and how it might be improved).

Is ignoring technical flaws somehow a sign of higher artistic sensibility?

-- hide signature --

Gerry
_______________________________________
First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne
gerry.winterbourne@ntlworld.com

tbcass
tbcass Forum Pro • Posts: 41,172
Re: Is this proof of, "It's the photographer"?

Do you understand what I mean by the improper use (I should add interpretation of results)?
--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels
------------
Misuse of the ability to do 100% pixel peeping is the bane of digital photography because it causes people to fret over inconsequential issues.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683676@N07/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

 tbcass's gear list:tbcass's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX10 IV Sony a99 II Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM +10 more
Ontario Gone
Ontario Gone Veteran Member • Posts: 4,183
Re: Sometimes, Yes . . .

bford wrote:

Glen Barrington wrote:

samfan wrote:

Are people seriously competing who can make a better photograph with a worse camera?

They often think they are proving that the gear doesn't matter, but in a sense, they are just doing the same thing as the measurebators. That is, highlighting the gear at the expense of the image.

Why would someone view people talking about gear as "measurebators," and then assume that they care less about the image?

Without the gear there is no image.

I will take it even further. So what, who cares if they are measurebators. Do we criticize the guy who restores cars just because he likes working on cars? Should we belittle him because he doesn't enjoy the "feeling" of driving them down a country road? Aside from the fact we don't actually know he doesn't enjoy driving, even if he didn't, who are we to criticize his choice of enjoyment.

What i see is one side being very pompous and judgemental, while the other side simply wants to discuss their own craft. And it's all a bunch of crap anyway, everybody cares about the gear, just to differing degrees. If Joe Blow artist really didn't care, he would be using some obsolete ancient camera without AF and shooting at ISO 125 all day, and a noisy 125 at that.

I think what we see is some people, who think the "art" side should easily be the more important of the two factors. And, they think everybody should feel this way. Reminds me of right wing fundamentalists, insisting everybody talk to their personal Santa Claus just as they do. It's like bford said further up the thread, you don't see too many gearheads telling the artistic crowd that the content isn't important, but you see tons of "artists" telling gearheads the pixels don't matter.

-- hide signature --

"Run to the light, Carol Anne. Run as fast as you can!"

 Ontario Gone's gear list:Ontario Gone's gear list
Nikon D7000 Canon EOS 70D Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM
bford Senior Member • Posts: 1,489
Re: Is this proof of, "It's the photographer"?

tbcass wrote:

Do you understand what I mean by the improper use (I should add interpretation of results)?
--
Tom

Tom I know you said you didn't want to quote because you are on a phone (impressed, by the way) but I need a little help with what you are responding to.

Look at the picture, not the pixels
------------
Misuse of the ability to do 100% pixel peeping is the bane of digital photography because it causes people to fret over inconsequential issues.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683676@N07/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

Dennis Forum Pro • Posts: 18,927
Re: Sometimes, Yes . . .

Ontario Gone wrote:

It's like bford said further up the thread, you don't see too many gearheads telling the artistic crowd that the content isn't important, but you see tons of "artists" telling gearheads the pixels don't matter.

You see plenty of gearheads telling artists that images are cr*p without (their definition of) technical excellence. Of course, it's all sophomoric nonsense anyway. What is and isn't important varies widely given the vastly different ways in which people use cameras. Some artsy types swear a photo is useless if it doesn't "tug at the heart strings" or other such blather; pixel peepers say it's useless if there are blown highlights. Extremes, like you said. Liberals are dumb. No, conservatives are dumb. Maybe schools need to teach kids how to think in between black and white. What good is 13 stops of dynamic range when nobody seems to be able to see shades of gray ?

tbcass
tbcass Forum Pro • Posts: 41,172
Re: Sometimes, Yes . . .

Very well said and is what I was trying to say but not very well apparently. Very rarely are the extremes of anything the way things really are but a large segment of the population look at things in black or white, right or wrong, yes or no, left or right. Very little in the world is that simple.
--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels
------------
Misuse of the ability to do 100% pixel peeping is the bane of digital photography because it causes people to fret over inconsequential issues.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683676@N07/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

 tbcass's gear list:tbcass's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX10 IV Sony a99 II Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM +10 more
tbcass
tbcass Forum Pro • Posts: 41,172
Re: Is this proof of, "It's the photographer"?

I've always believed that if you Photoshop then any camera and lens combination will do.  True story.

Dream on. Photoshop cannot add quality that is not there to begin with. It can only fine tune what you have and make it look a little better.
--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels
------------
Misuse of the ability to do 100% pixel peeping is the bane of digital photography because it causes people to fret over inconsequential issues.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683676@N07/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

 tbcass's gear list:tbcass's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX10 IV Sony a99 II Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM +10 more
tbcass
tbcass Forum Pro • Posts: 41,172
Re: Is this proof of, "It's the photographer"?

Your replies to me seem to make me think that you believe I am on the aesthetic side of the argument which isn't true. I want technically high quality photos probably just as much as you do. The fact is I am not that skilled in the aesthetic side of things being a retired engineer and a long time techno geek. It just is I admire people who are good at the artistic aspect because it's the area I don't do that well. Want a well composed in focus properly exposed photo? I'm your guy. Want an artistic photo? Look elsewhere.
--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels
------------
Misuse of the ability to do 100% pixel peeping is the bane of digital photography because it causes people to fret over inconsequential issues.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683676@N07/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

 tbcass's gear list:tbcass's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX10 IV Sony a99 II Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM +10 more
DenWil
DenWil Veteran Member • Posts: 3,730
Ya'll better pray it's 'the camera'.Re: Is this proof of, "It's the photographer"?
1
-- hide signature --

denniswilliams

Glen Barrington
OP Glen Barrington Forum Pro • Posts: 20,020
Re: Ya'll better pray it's 'the camera'.Re: Is this proof of, "It's the photographer"?

DenWil wrote:

I'm pretty sure much of this thread is more prayer than it is argument!

-- hide signature --

I look good fat, I'm gonna look good old. . .
http://glenbarrington.blogspot.com/

 Glen Barrington's gear list:Glen Barrington's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M10 Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4.0-5.6 Olympus Zuiko Digital 14-54mm 1:2.8-3.5 +12 more
Ontario Gone
Ontario Gone Veteran Member • Posts: 4,183
Re: Ya'll better pray it's 'the camera'.Re: Is this proof of, "It's the photographer"?

Glen Barrington wrote:

I'm pretty sure much of this thread is more prayer than it is argument!

Sigh.... now there is an incredible waste of time.

-- hide signature --

"Run to the light, Carol Anne. Run as fast as you can!"

 Ontario Gone's gear list:Ontario Gone's gear list
Nikon D7000 Canon EOS 70D Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM
Joris1632 Senior Member • Posts: 2,303
Re: "It's the photographer" is a condescending and incomplete cliche

bford wrote:

Joris1632 wrote:

bford wrote:

The fact is, the artistic and the technical are both important.

I agree, I never said otherwise.

You have downplayed the importance of the technical side of photography. The fact is, the technical side of photography has always been important.

I have not downplayed it, that is your faulty interpretation. I learnt photography at college on an 8x10 studio cam and a Rolleiflex 2TLR and have used top Nikon gear from the mid 1960s  until today. I love digital photography and wish I'd had it's convenience in my working days.

Why is sharper better? What are your universal criteria? Mine are simple, does the shot achieve it's aims or not? Is the aim to convey an emotion or accurately reproduce a test chart?

A sharper lens affects all results, not just test charts. A sharper lens, all other things being equal, can convey more emotion by actually recording more detail. Don't need so much detail for a particular project? The results can be blurred through software. Adding detail when it is not there in the first place though is not possible. A sharper lens also helps a photographer crop more aggressively, potentially saving a shot. A better lens also has less distortion and light fall off, and consistent sharpness across the frame. Most photographer's aims include the technical.

I would sincerely like to know how emotion is conveyed by more detail.

In that case you may as well just take photos of blobs of light and color.

Yes, why not?, - as long as your equipment is up to it!

Would you then like a camera that is designed to be limited to such a type of photography?

"Limited"? it would have to be pretty sophisticated; incidentally, what else does a camera capture?

I SAID 'superbly exposed and processed" meaning of equal technical quality.If you pick a genre like sport which is technically challenging, the outstanding/ prize winning pics are the ones where a certain viewpoint has been chosen, the composition is planned and the photographer has caught a special instant. All his mates with identical gear missed it.

You asked for examples, and I gave them to you. The things I mentioned are purely technical, technical things about cameras that can improve a person's photography.

PLEASE read carefully, "identical gear". It is something other than gear which makes a really great shot.

You dodge the issue. Art and craft in photography go together, one doesn't exclude the other.

What have I dodged? You spoke about the "technical" and I responded with technical, like I have been throughout the discussion. Perhaps English is not your native language but I believe you're confusing the technical (as in technological) side of photography with technique.

Perhaps English isn't your native tongue?  It is fact, mine.

Learning photography is learning to see the world, and to see it through the eye of the camera.

And if your are looking through the eye of a more capable camera and lens then your photos will have more potential of being something special.

Nonsense. Do you honestly believe that?

Of course, otherwise I wouldn't have wrote it. An obvious example of that is a landscape photographer using a Nikon D800 over a point and shoot.

That's silly. My meaning was that the brain "sees" differently, one has to learn to see what the camera will record. Perhaps nuances of language escape you? And as to your comparison doesn't a Sigma DPM count as a point-and-shoot?

Making photos for most photographers entails maximizing the technical and artistic aspects of photography. It's always been that way.

Yes, I've said so repeatedly.

A photographer also doesn't have to communicate anything to anyone. Many photographers take pictures for their own satisfaction and to try and record things as faithfully as to what they experienced.

I find this seriously odd. Can there be a photographer who doesn't want to share his images?

A photo doesn't have to have some deep and philosophical meaning to be enjoyed.

Of course it doesn't, I've said several times now that every image should be judged on it's own terms. Don't you understand that?

If someone were to ask me me what "unique vision" I was trying communicate in a photo that I took I would feel a bit sick.

Very odd.

That's the kind of unnecessary and often pretentious talk that many so-called artists feel they need to engage in, typically to try and add value and get validation from others.

Can't speak for others but I do what I do and if people "validate" it by paying money for it that's cool.

otherwise most photographers would still be shooting film using homemade pinhole cameras.

.... not most, but some do just that! Don't rekindle the film/digital wars

Why did you feel the need to say "some" after I said most? That's a given. My comment was correct though.

Your English is slipping, in reply to  "most photographers ..... " my reply in English translates as -  not most, but some photographers still shoot film using homemade pinhole cameras. How can you disagree?.

. For some the very best technology is critical, for others it don't matter a damn.

No, I have addressed your downplaying of the technical side of photography when the technical, the technological, as opposed to something like painting, has always been a fundamental part of photography.

FFS I have not downplayed anything. And please stop quoting painting as you clearly have no knowledge whatsoever of the chemistry and technology, (yes technology!) involved.

I enjoy and appreciate what I have, but I also strive to improve upon what I have. Every person that views photos made today with modern digital cameras are appreciating technological advancements that have greatly improved photography, whether they know about the technicalities involved or not.

Yes, that's probably true

Yes? Probably? Do you believe it, or don't you?

probably

and most of those people are very glad of their smartphones!

As a person that continues to put the emphasis on the photographer's skill I find it strange and contradictory that you would mention smartphones in such a way.

I was referring to the viewers ( "those people"is a noun clause referring to "Every person that" ...etc.) , can they see perfect sharpness on their smartphones or do they need a high resolution colour calibrated monitor? Surely your images need a 27" Eizo? (sarcasm)

The pictures made with today's run of the mill digital cameras displayed on run of the mill monitors make most prints of the film days look like crap.

What has that to do with anything at all?  Especially for those who make photos for personal viewing only(!)

As to the point of all this; as well as deciding the subject, exposure, processing and printing or sharing, the photographer decides which camera to use. I can only see one conclusion.

What conclusion is that? You lost me.

Well, like, er, the thread, -  ""it's the photographer" is a condescending  ......etc."  As the photographer decides everything including which camera - he has to get the credit, - or blame.

Don't be in such a hurry to give knee-jerk reactions.

-- hide signature --

Joris1632

-- hide signature --

Joris1632

Gerry Winterbourne Forum Pro • Posts: 15,411
No
1

Consider the whole range of photographic subjects: sub-macro to broad landscapes, inanimate artefacts to portraits to sports etc, etc ...

Consider the range of light falling on those subjects: very bright to almost none, natural to multi-point artificial ...

Consider the range of technology to capture those subjects: film, digital or just plain old photograms ...

Consider the range of manipulation of the captured images: simple acceptance of makers' or labs' standard processing to the extremes of reticulation (film) or HDR (digital) to name but a few ...

Consider the range of ways of displaying the output images: fine prints, downsized for web ...

That amounts to an enormous range of possible start and end points. Some photographers perform better (by any meaning of "better" one chooses to apply) in some parts of that range than others. Some photographers perform better (same choice) as others. Some equipment performs better than other equipment - and again, this might be true only for parts of the range.

All the link you've posted proves is that for one photographer in a tiny part of the range the choice of equipment used to produce web images doesn't matter very much. I see nothing in it to justify extrapolation outside its limited frame.

-- hide signature --

Gerry
_______________________________________
First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne
gerry.winterbourne@ntlworld.com

mostlyboringphotog Senior Member • Posts: 8,635
Re: Is this proof of, "It's the photographer"?

Why do we need proof and if this was the proof, then what?

 mostlyboringphotog's gear list:mostlyboringphotog's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Pentax 645Z Nikon 1 J5
bford Senior Member • Posts: 1,489
Re: "It's the photographer" is a condescending and incomplete cliche

Joris1632 wrote:

bford wrote:

Joris1632 wrote:

bford wrote:

The fact is, the artistic and the technical are both important.

I agree, I never said otherwise.

You have downplayed the importance of the technical side of photography. The fact is, the technical side of photography has always been important.

I have not downplayed it, that is your faulty interpretation. I learnt photography at college on an 8x10 studio cam and a Rolleiflex 2TLR and have used top Nikon gear from the mid 1960s until today. I love digital photography and wish I'd had it's convenience in my working days.

You have, all throughout your posts. You disagree; that's fine.

Why is sharper better? What are your universal criteria? Mine are simple, does the shot achieve it's aims or not? Is the aim to convey an emotion or accurately reproduce a test chart?

A sharper lens affects all results, not just test charts. A sharper lens, all other things being equal, can convey more emotion by actually recording more detail. Don't need so much detail for a particular project? The results can be blurred through software. Adding detail when it is not there in the first place though is not possible. A sharper lens also helps a photographer crop more aggressively, potentially saving a shot. A better lens also has less distortion and light fall off, and consistent sharpness across the frame. Most photographer's aims include the technical.

I would sincerely like to know how emotion is conveyed by more detail.

In that case you may as well just take photos of blobs of light and color.

Yes, why not?, - as long as your equipment is up to it!

Would you then like a camera that is designed to be limited to such a type of photography?

"Limited"? it would have to be pretty sophisticated; incidentally, what else does a camera capture?

But blobs of color and light wouldn't require a camera with anything more than a handful of pixels.

I SAID 'superbly exposed and processed" meaning of equal technical quality.If you pick a genre like sport which is technically challenging, the outstanding/ prize winning pics are the ones where a certain viewpoint has been chosen, the composition is planned and the photographer has caught a special instant. All his mates with identical gear missed it.

You asked for examples, and I gave them to you. The things I mentioned are purely technical, technical things about cameras that can improve a person's photography.

PLEASE read carefully, "identical gear". It is something other than gear which makes a really great shot.

My response was based exactly on what you said. You mentioned the technical and I responded with the technical. I believe you probably meant technique instead.

You dodge the issue. Art and craft in photography go together, one doesn't exclude the other.

What have I dodged? You spoke about the "technical" and I responded with technical, like I have been throughout the discussion. Perhaps English is not your native language but I believe you're confusing the technical (as in technological) side of photography with technique.

Perhaps English isn't your native tongue? It is fact, mine.

It doesn't look like it's your native tongue. Your writing is certainly not typical of a native English speaker. Your screen name also sounds Dutch. Am I right?

Anyway, and again, you mentioned the technical and I responded with the technical. The technical things about a camera that can produce a technically (not to do with technique) better image. I haven't been focusing on anything "other than gear which makes a really great shot."

Learning photography is learning to see the world, and to see it through the eye of the camera.

And if your are looking through the eye of a more capable camera and lens then your photos will have more potential of being something special.

Nonsense. Do you honestly believe that?

Of course, otherwise I wouldn't have wrote it. An obvious example of that is a landscape photographer using a Nikon D800 over a point and shoot.

That's silly. My meaning was that the brain "sees" differently, one has to learn to see what the camera will record.

How is it silly? Typically a landscape photographer wants a high resolution camera for such photography. He or she is not going to want to "learn to see what the camera will record" if that camera is a typical point and shoot with a tiny sensor.

Perhaps nuances of language escape you?

How can you speak of nuances when you can't even see the value of using a D8xx series camera over a point and shoot camera that typically has a small sensor?

And as to your comparison doesn't a Sigma DPM count as a point-and-shoot?

I own two Sigma DPMs, and no one knowledgeable in such cameras would view them as "point-and-shoot" cameras. The term point and shoot is very commonly used to highlight a less sophisticated and less capable camera. I think you knew that.

Making photos for most photographers entails maximizing the technical and artistic aspects of photography. It's always been that way.

Yes, I've said so repeatedly.

No, I have. You were focusing on the artistic and craftsmen side.

A photographer also doesn't have to communicate anything to anyone. Many photographers take pictures for their own satisfaction and to try and record things as faithfully as to what they experienced.

I find this seriously odd. Can there be a photographer who doesn't want to share his images?

Why not?

Besides, one can share their photos without having something to communicate.

A photo doesn't have to have some deep and philosophical meaning to be enjoyed.

Of course it doesn't, I've said several times now that every image should be judged on it's own terms. Don't you understand that?

I am simply responding to what you said. You've snipped out your relevant comment.

If someone were to ask me me what "unique vision" I was trying communicate in a photo that I took I would feel a bit sick.

Very odd.

How can you say that after what you just said immediately above?

That's the kind of unnecessary and often pretentious talk that many so-called artists feel they need to engage in, typically to try and add value and get validation from others.

Can't speak for others but I do what I do and if people "validate" it by paying money for it that's cool.

Yet you find it odd for me not wanting to "communicate" a "unique vision?"

otherwise most photographers would still be shooting film using homemade pinhole cameras.

.... not most, but some do just that! Don't rekindle the film/digital wars

Why did you feel the need to say "some" after I said most? That's a given. My comment was correct though.

Your English is slipping, in reply to "most photographers ..... " my reply in English translates as - not most, but some photographers still shoot film using homemade pinhole cameras. How can you disagree?.

And most people would say, obviously, quickly followed by, so?

What's the point in stating something that is already a given if someone else has already explicitly acknowledged that?

. For some the very best technology is critical, for others it don't matter a damn.

No, I have addressed your downplaying of the technical side of photography when the technical, the technological, as opposed to something like painting, has always been a fundamental part of photography.

FFS I have not downplayed anything. And please stop quoting painting as you clearly have no knowledge whatsoever of the chemistry and technology, (yes technology!) involved.

I'm not quoting painting; I'm mentioning painting.

The point in mentioning painting is that it is an artistic medium that is not affected much by technology, in comparison to photography.

I enjoy and appreciate what I have, but I also strive to improve upon what I have. Every person that views photos made today with modern digital cameras are appreciating technological advancements that have greatly improved photography, whether they know about the technicalities involved or not.

Yes, that's probably true

Yes? Probably? Do you believe it, or don't you?

probably

Then there's not point in saying yes. That's all I'm saying.

and most of those people are very glad of their smartphones!

As a person that continues to put the emphasis on the photographer's skill I find it strange and contradictory that you would mention smartphones in such a way.

I was referring to the viewers ( "those people"is a noun clause referring to "Every person that" ...etc.) , can they see perfect sharpness on their smartphones or do they need a high resolution colour calibrated monitor? Surely your images need a 27" Eizo? (sarcasm)

Well, you snipped out relevant previous comments so I'll pass on responding in detail, but, no, my images look good on any run of the mill monitor.

The pictures made with today's run of the mill digital cameras displayed on run of the mill monitors make most prints of the film days look like crap.

What has that to do with anything at all? Especially for those who make photos for personal viewing only(!)

Go back in the other posts, that you snipped out of this one, and see what was being discussed.

As to the point of all this; as well as deciding the subject, exposure, processing and printing or sharing, the photographer decides which camera to use. I can only see one conclusion.

What conclusion is that? You lost me.

Well, like, er, the thread, - ""it's the photographer" is a condescending ......etc." As the photographer decides everything including which camera - he has to get the credit, - or blame.

I haven't been talking about the photographer, I've been focusing on the technical side.

Don't be in such a hurry to give knee-jerk reactions.

If that were true I wouldn't have asked you "what conclusion" and I wouldn't have told you that you lost me.

At this point we are starting to repeat things so It would be best to just move on.

-- hide signature --

Joris1632

-- hide signature --

Joris1632

bford Senior Member • Posts: 1,489
Re: Is this proof of, "It's the photographer"?

tbcass wrote:

Your replies to me seem to make me think that you believe I am on the aesthetic side of the argument which isn't true. I want technically high quality photos probably just as much as you do. The fact is I am not that skilled in the aesthetic side of things being a retired engineer and a long time techno geek. It just is I admire people who are good at the artistic aspect because it's the area I don't do that well. Want a well composed in focus properly exposed photo? I'm your guy. Want an artistic photo? Look elsewhere.

I only respond to comments, and what they say, as they come. I make no assumptions on what "side" anyone is on. My memory is usually not good enough for that.

Art is subjective, which is why it can be a very boring subject. I have no doubt that you are capable of producing an artistic photo.

-- hide signature --

Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels
------------
Misuse of the ability to do 100% pixel peeping is the bane of digital photography because it causes people to fret over inconsequential issues.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683676@N07/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

Joris1632 Senior Member • Posts: 2,303
Re: "It's the photographer" is a condescending and incomplete cliche

My response was based exactly on what you said. You mentioned the technical and I responded with the technical. I believe you probably meant technique instead.

No, I meant what I said, I think you meant technological -

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/technical?s=t

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/technological

It doesn't look like it's your native tongue. Your writing is certainly not typical of a native English speaker. Your screen name also sounds Dutch. Am I right?

Maybe you're not used to reading correct English grammar and spelling, perhaps it's too technical? Your answer is vaguely insulting but I'll reply anyway.You are dead wrong. I am English. Try googling my screen name.

"I haven't been talking about the photographer, I've been focusing on the technical side."

The thread was sort of about the photographer. You are right, you are repetitive. Maybe you should do others the courtesy of listening to their point of view before jumping to conclusions about their intelligence, knowledge or even nationality.

Joris1632

tbcass
tbcass Forum Pro • Posts: 41,172
Re: "It's the photographer" is a condescending and incomplete cliche

If there wasn't a 150 post limit I bet this battle of one-up-man-ship and getting in the last word could go on forever.
--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels
------------
Misuse of the ability to do 100% pixel peeping is the bane of digital photography because it causes people to fret over inconsequential issues.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683676@N07/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

 tbcass's gear list:tbcass's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX10 IV Sony a99 II Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM +10 more
Ontario Gone
Ontario Gone Veteran Member • Posts: 4,183
Re: "It's the photographer" is a condescending and incomplete cliche

tbcass wrote:

If there wasn't a 150 post limit I bet this battle of one-up-man-ship and getting in the last word could go on forever.

We can always start another thread to continue 

-- hide signature --

"Run to the light, Carol Anne. Run as fast as you can!"

 Ontario Gone's gear list:Ontario Gone's gear list
Nikon D7000 Canon EOS 70D Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads