Why bad photographers think they are good??? (Page 17): :sm06:...

Photographer Jim Loc: Rio Vista, CA

MauiMoto wrote:

Because Marxists, communists, atheists, whatever you want to call them, have hijacked our reward circuits, training us to be the opposite of humble. My father always said, "The more you know, the more you know how little you know.", just the opposite of the attitude today.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Abo wrote:

Just so there is no ambiguity (on my part).

Composition: Position of elements within the frame.

God knows what your definition must be.

Yes, it's about placement of elements within the frame, but my understanding of good composition is about how, when, where, and why to place those elements within the frame, and how to use light and shadow to emphasize and deemphasize those elements to meet your intended goals. It is far from the simplistic definition you indicate,. It is a learned skill, unless one is blessed with a native talent for it. Composition can make or break an image.

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

Rongnongno wrote:

One may criticize the technical quality but the reality is the content cannot be criticized at all. As photographers too many things are variables.

While there are many variables, the notion that one can't critique or criticise the content of a photograph is rubbish.

I would say that about 75-80 percent of the critical feedback I am used to is about content and concept. Yes, in visual art and visual communication concept and intent are important and are subject to scrutiny. Visual literacy is very important. Essentially the questions are...

What is the narrative or concept behind the image?
What does the image maker want to express?
Is it apparent enough to be readable?
Might it be misread partly or entirely?
Is is perhaps too obvious?
Are there conceptual layers that the viewer can engage with?
What is the aesthetic language of the image? Does it fit the concept?

These are few of the questions that are considered in the critiques that I am familiar with.

This all being said photography in particular is a vast medium with numerous uses. I am situated at this point the area of the "art world" or more specifically the "academic art world." Certainly not saying that is better than other areas but that is definitely a different world at times. In fact often many conceptual photographic works are technically crap by many peoples measure.

Nor am I saying that everyone or anyone needs to consider these things or critique this but rather pointing out that it is possible to critique an image beyond its technical and compositional aspects.

Sorry for the digression from the original topic. It was an aspect of the conversation that I find interesting.

srt101fan

Rongnongno wrote:

This not a 'pompous game'. br br b It is a simpl... (show quote)

I will ignore your insulting comments. Let me just say I did not intend to diss you. I apologize if my comments came across that way.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The artist spends years learning to create images no one else could create in a life-time.

User ID

MauiMoto wrote:

Because Marxists, communists, atheists, whatever
you want to call them, have hijacked our reward
circuits, training us to be the opposite of humble.
......................

Everywhere ! There's one under my bed.
Well .... there WAS one, til I "read her"
the 2nd Amendment. Gotta go clean up
that mess myself now. Just can not find
any good cheap help nowadays ...

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

MauiMoto wrote:

Because Marxists, communists, atheists, whatever you want to call them, have hijacked our reward circuits, training us to be the opposite of humble. My father always said, "The more you know, the more you know how little you know.", just the opposite of the attitude today. If someone takes the time to criticize someone else, they should be thankful and try to benefit from the criticism,but this requires humility.

I’m not even quite sure what make of this. I don’t see where political or religious ideology has anything to do with being humble. Many televangelists and our current president have no humility at all.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Darkroom317 wrote:

While there are many variables, the notion that one can't critique or criticise the content of a photograph is rubbish. .../...

Go ahead then criticize a family picture.

I once took a fuzzy image of an older woman, she was in the background of something else (something we now call photo-bombing). That image, cropped, became a high seller because she died a few days later and this was the last image of her.

No there times where the content, even if one does not like, it cannot be criticized.

The technical aspect of such a picture? That can be criticized.

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

Rongnongno wrote:

Go ahead then criticize a family picture.

I once took a fuzzy image of an older woman, she was in the background of something else (something we now call photo-bombing). That image, cropped, became a high seller because she died a few days later and this was the last image of her.

No there times where the content, even if one does not like, it cannot be criticized.

The technical aspect of such a picture? That can be criticized.

I wasn't suggesting that. This is not right place for that unless requested. Perhaps I misunderstood your statement as being general rather than about that specific image.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Darkroom317 wrote:

I wasn't suggesting that. This is not right place for that unless requested. Perhaps I misunderstood your statement as being general rather than about that specific image.

My initial post was about that specific image as well as all the others of this kind (the reason why I answered with another sample).

When it comes to personal stuff, family, memories, whatever the content is more important than the technical aspect. This does not preclude or prevent a critic of the image itself on technical aspect.

To approach both at the same time is difficult, especially if the person taking it has invested itself into it.

In the case I was involved in, the crop was really a piece of **** technically (out of focus and under exposed) but the family wanted her and her alone. So...

RodeoMan Loc: St Joseph, Missouri

GrandmaG wrote:

Well said. Some people may think helpful comments ARE criticism. One should expect some criticism and learn from it.

Grandma I think we agree with each other.

Abo

mwsilvers wrote:

Yes, it's about placement of elements within the frame, but my understanding of good composition is about how, when, where, and why to place those elements within the frame, and how to use light and shadow to emphasize and deemphasize those elements to meet your intended goals. It is far from the simplistic definition you indicate,. It is a learned skill, unless one is blessed with a native talent for it. Composition can make or break an image.

Yes Light and shade can be used as compositional elements. Edward Steichen was a master of using
light and particularly shade for compositional purpose... Composition: Position of elements within the frame. Yet you had to attach a derogatory "simplistic" to the definition.

And you reckon "It is a learned skill, unless one is blessed with a native talent for it."
Composition whether it is learned or acquired by direct perception is irrelevant to a definition
of composition... unless your goal is to deliberately muddy the waters.

You also state that there is a how, when, and, where, and why of "composition".

The "when" part... is that supposed to be a joke. Or is the "when" some other time
apart from when you take the photo or post process LOL.

And I'd love to hear your explanation of the difference between the how and where."

And your "why" of composition LOL... why does one press the shutter button?

Composition: Position of elements within the frame... whether the elements
be light, shade, colour, 3 dimensional objects, or refracted ebalaganou.

You say my definition is simplistic, however it is not my definition
it is the definition of Natalie Morawsky; lecturer of
Design Processes and Integration of Colour Theory at
the Photoimaging campus of Melbourne Polytechnic.

So don't argue with me about it Silvers.

Abo

Longshadow wrote:

img src="https://static.uglyhedgehog.com/images/s... (show quote)

When I was about 8 years old I asked my father what a b%gger was.
He thought for about 5 seconds

and said, "It's a man who farts in
bed then tells his wife he heard a burglar, so she sticks her head under the covers."

Abo

MauiMoto wrote:

Because Marxists, communists, atheists, whatever you want to call them, have hijacked our reward circuits, training us to be the opposite of humble. My father always said, "The more you know, the more you know how little you know.", just the opposite of the attitude today. If someone takes the time to criticize someone else, they should be thankful and try to benefit from the criticism,but this requires humility.

Communism is dead; Socialism is the hideous stench of its unburied corpse.

If you want a good laugh, have a read of the Socialist Worker. It's a "news" (I put
"news" in inverted commas for very good reason) paper published by "ISO"
Not the International Standards Organisation... the International Socialist Organisation. lol

Badgertale Loc: Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA

When I am a photographer...I AM THE PHOTOGRAPHER. PERIOD. I shoot what I like. I compose what I like. I edit how I please. Why? BECAUSE I AM THE PHOTOGRAPHER. You hire me or not by what I produce. You don't like it? Go somewhere else. If I show a photo to someone I may or may not be looking for an opinion. Regardless...I AM THE PHOTOGRAPHER. I'm not out to impress YOU...unless I am, which I'm not...so there! LOL.

If I want to be critiqued by anyone, I am prepared to take the good, bad and ugly and big enough to honestly apply the criticism or not. Otherwise, I don't ask.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda...blah, blah, blah. If I want your advice, I'll ask. If you give unsolicited advice, I'll still listen. You never know when someone, even a hater, has a good idea.

Happy New Year, everyone. Keep snapping those cam's!!!