| Home | Forums | Reviews | Guides | Newsgroups | Register | Search |
 |
| Thread Tools |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Eric Stevens <> wrote:
> >There have been recent discussions along the line of 'photographers >who concentrate on technique never produce a photograph worth a damn'. Only in your imagination, Eric. The phrase "along the line of" indicates that you are stretching logic beyond its elastic limit. Snap! >The argument has almost been pushed as far as saying that 'good >photography is inherently flawed'. Almost? Nowhere near that, except in your over-fertile imagination. >These arguments have been received with the scorn they have deserved. "These arguments" were never even made. You chose the grossest of exaggerations to try to make your point, which only shows that there isn't really a point to be made. You should not exaggerate to the point where you end up misrepresenting previous discussions purely to start an argument. Nice try. Better luck next time.  |
|
|
|
|||
|
|
| |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
On 12/5/2012 5:16 AM, Anthony Polson wrote:
> Eric Stevens <> wrote: >> >> There have been recent discussions along the line of 'photographers >> who concentrate on technique never produce a photograph worth a damn'. > > > Only in your imagination, Eric. The phrase "along the line of" > indicates that you are stretching logic beyond its elastic limit. > > Snap! > > >> The argument has almost been pushed as far as saying that 'good >> photography is inherently flawed'. > > > Almost? Nowhere near that, except in your over-fertile imagination. > > >> These arguments have been received with the scorn they have deserved. > > > "These arguments" were never even made. You chose the grossest of > exaggerations to try to make your point, which only shows that there > isn't really a point to be made. You should not exaggerate to the > point where you end up misrepresenting previous discussions purely to > start an argument. > > Nice try. Better luck next time. > I wonder if the response was from someone who perhaps, saw themselves in a mirror. -- Peter |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
| |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Eric Stevens <> wrote:
>On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 10:16:40 +0000, Anthony Polson ><> wrote: > >>Eric Stevens <> wrote: >>> >>>There have been recent discussions along the line of 'photographers >>>who concentrate on technique never produce a photograph worth a damn'. >> >> >>Only in your imagination, Eric. The phrase "along the line of" >>indicates that you are stretching logic beyond its elastic limit. >> >>Snap! >> >> >>>The argument has almost been pushed as far as saying that 'good >>>photography is inherently flawed'. >> >> >>Almost? Nowhere near that, except in your over-fertile imagination. >> >> >>>These arguments have been received with the scorn they have deserved. >> >> >>"These arguments" were never even made. You chose the grossest of >>exaggerations to try to make your point, which only shows that there >>isn't really a point to be made. You should not exaggerate to the >>point where you end up misrepresenting previous discussions purely to >>start an argument. >> >>Nice try. Better luck next time. > >The following was posted only recently in this news group: > > "People who want to learn more and more about the technicalities and > features of their equipment that contribute nothing of any value to > an image are the ones who have a narrow focus. Quite frankly, > focus does not get any narrower. > > I have more than a slight suspicion that the same people are > lacking basically in creativity and doing everything they can to > avoid addressing that issue. Obsessing about the technicalities of > the myriad features of DSLRs is a useful exercise in denial. > > Fill your mind with how your camera works, and it gets much easier > to forget that you don't have a creative bone in your body." > >I thought my statement 'photographers who concentrate on technique >never produce a photograph worth a damn', although exaggerated, >summarised that point of view very nicely. You cannot seriously use such an exaggerated statement to "summarise" what I wrote. You painted an extreme view that I simply do not have, then attacking it. I hope you enjoyed yourself, because it was of absolutely no value to the discussion. >After all, when the hammer >you have doesn't drive the point home, it is time to deploy a bigger >hammer.  You would need an extremely large hammer, because you appear to be hitting completely the wrong nail. >The subsequent and related other discussions mentioned the image, >composition (only to the extent that somebody mentioned the rule of >thirds), and technical aspects. No one made the point that you should >have a subject worth photographing in the first place, and that was >the point I wanted to bring out. >I nearly chipped in at the time but decided not to. There is no such thing as "a subject not worth photographing". There are plenty of images that should never have been shot, but a creative photographer will always find some aspect of a subject that is worth pointing a camera at in order to captivate and inspire people. After all, photography is a means of communication. I give our students assignments that help prepare them for real life assignments in the commercial world. They include taking what looks like a very dull subject and aiming to make a great image of it. I am frequently amazed (and humbled) by their ability. Most are between 18 and 22 years old and their experience of life outside the confines of a family environment has been short. Yet they can take a subject that most experienced amateur photographers would either not see, or ignore because they considered it "boring", and instead produce images that send powerful messages to the people who view them. >However, the >discovery of the photograph of a detail of Milan Cathedral changed my >mind. http://imgsrc.ru/andrew_r/30460732.html#bp > >I found that detail of the cathedral fascinating. How did they build >it? How do the steps remain in place on that flimsy buttress arch? >What would the original builders think of the modern steel safety >rails? > >The photographer had little control over this photograph. There was >really only the one place he could stand. The lighting has problems >but it is what it is: the photographer could neither reposition the >sun nor the cathedral. > >The photograph may or may not be art but I think it is a great >photograph. It is of interest to people who are fascinated by the structure. Other than that, it sends no message at all. Obviously, there is a place for images that merely record things as they are. But this image is actually a spectacularly poor record of what might be an interesting structure if only it were possible to see more of it, or from a different viewpoint. If you cannot get to a better viewpoint and you absolutely must have an image of this part of this particular structure, then press the button. Otherwise, walk on by. I studied, trained and became professionally qualified in civil engineering including significant structural engineering content. I have a particular fascination with ecclesiastical buildings because of their wealth of fine architectural detail. Over the last decade, I have made a good living from shooting architectural subjects. If anyone was going to be interested in that image it would be me. However, it leaves me cold. In the absence of a distinct subject (ask yourself: "What is it an image of?") what stands out are the weird composition, the horrible barrel distortion, the tilted horizon, the veiling flare and resulting low contrast. To me, it is an epic fail, but probably no worse than most of the SI postings of the last few years. |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Eric Stevens <> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Dec 2012 01:52:36 +0000, Anthony Polson ><> wrote: > >>Eric Stevens <> wrote: >>> >>>>If you cannot get to a better viewpoint and you absolutely must have >>>>an image of this part of this particular structure, then press the >>>>button. Otherwise, walk on by. >>> >>>How would you suggest that the photographer take what you regard as >>>this very dull subject so as to make a great image of it? >> >> >>If someone has natural artistic talent, it can be nurtured and >>developed and informed by learning more about the technical aspects of >>photography. It is not possible to teach someone with no artistic >>talent how to make good art, except by accident. Sadly, the person >>whose image you like appears to fall in the latter category. >> >>As I said, walk on by. For a photographer of so little ability (just >>look at the rest of the album) it really isn't worth the effort. > >But that was not an option you gave to your students. That was probably because I have never given them a subject that was so difficult to access! >I agree that this photograph has a number of faults. Some are inherent >in the scene and nothing can be done about them. Others that you >mentioned, such as the horizon are easily fixed. Nevertheless I find >the subject striking and quite suitable for confirming my point that >'subject' is something which should not be ignored when evaluating a >photograph. Previously, you mentioned 'content'. That appears suddenly to have become 'subject'. That's highly appropriate, because I look at that image and cannot see one. There are several possible subjects but none stands out. I suspect that the person who pressed the shutter button had very little idea which he was trying to capture or portray. I suggest to my students that they always ask themselves about an image "what is it of?" If the question cannot be answered simply in a single phrase, the image is unlikely to communicate at all well. And communication is the name of the game here. |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Jeff wrote:
> On Thursday, 6 December 2012 18:30:02 UTC, sid wrote: >> Jeff wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I studied, trained and became professionally qualified in civil >> >> >> >> >> >> engineering including significant structural engineering content. I >> >> >> >> >> >> have a particular fascination with ecclesiastical buildings because of >> >> >> >> >> >> their wealth of fine architectural detail. Over the last decade, I >> >> >> >> >> >> have made a good living from shooting architectural subjects. If >> >> >> >> >> >> anyone was going to be interested in that image it would be me. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >I was a Chartered Surveyor and have an interest in photographing >> >> >ecclesiastical buildings but have made no money from doing so. Could you >> >> >point me to some of your images that have provided a good living for >> >you? >> >> >It must have been very difficult to make good money from such work and I >> >> >would be interested to see, and get some ideas from for personal use, >> >> >images that contributed to your success. Titles of Magazines or other >> >> >information about where your images can be viewed would be much >> >> >appreciated by me. >> >> > Thanks in anticipation. >> >> > Jeff >> >> >> >> sorry to dissapoint you Jeff, but your are asking the arch bullshitter of >> of >> >> the photography groups to do something he refuses to do. Although he >> claims >> >> to variously own part of a photo retail chain, to work in a camera shop, >> to >> >> make a living taking photos, to have students hanging on his every word, >> to >> >> have had a Paris Match cover photo and numerous other outrageious claims >> to >> >> superiority, the only photos we can be sure are his are some dodgy old >> train >> >> photos and a gastly photo of a vcr. >> >> >> >> Correct me if I'm wrong. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> sid >> >> RLU 300284 >> >> 2 > > Thanks Sid. > My enquiry was rather tongue in cheek given that the post was by Polson > whose postings I have marveled at on various groups. He seems to change > his name from time to time and the "Anthony" part is new to me. He used to > be "Tony" then "Bruce" but his Walter Mitty bullshit remains much the > same. Cheers Jeff phewww, thank goodness for that, I didn't recognise your name and your inapropriately long line length so I thought he had actually fooled somebody, ha. I'm glad to see I was wrong. -- sid RLU 300284 2 |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Re: Art vs Composition vs Content vs Technique | Chris Malcolm | Digital Photography | 0 | 12-17-2012 12:38 PM |
| Re: Art vs Composition vs Content vs Technique | Robert Coe | Digital Photography | 1 | 12-05-2012 05:27 AM |
| compuer nail printer nail art painting Nail Art Printer Computer Salon Digital Paint MUST HAVE | arcade | Computer Information | 1 | 11-30-2006 04:11 PM |
| compuer nail printer nail art painting Nail Art Printer Computer Salon Digital Paint MUST HAVE | arcade | Computer Information | 0 | 11-30-2006 02:40 PM |
| boutique and fine art royalty free images - free fine art image offer | Andrew Mowat | Digital Photography | 0 | 09-14-2004 05:35 AM |
