Do average photos today all basically stink?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Jun 25, 2013.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Jun 25, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    >
    > On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 22:40:17 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >An interesting article. Maybe not for its conclusions, depending on your view, but that someone took the time to at least think about things, something not done much in today's photography.
    > >
    > >http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life...most-so-forgettable/article12754086/?page=all

    >
    > What I find amazing is that anyone actually give's a rat's ass about
    > all those photos to actually write a really stupid article. Whether or
    > not a photo is any good is in the eye of the beholder. It's always
    > been this way. A poorly done family photo may be as good as gold if
    > all the other photos are lost in a flood or fire. I say keep shooting.
    > Good or bad, just fire away and let's sort it all out later.


    He obviously has never heard of Sturgeon's Law--"90 percent of
    everything is crap".
     
    J. Clarke, Jun 25, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bowser wrote:
    > On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 22:40:17 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> An interesting article. Maybe not for its conclusions, depending on
    >> your view, but that someone took the time to at least think about
    >> things, something not done much in today's photography.
    >>
    >> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life...most-so-forgettable/article12754086/?page=all

    >
    > What I find amazing is that anyone actually give's a rat's ass about
    > all those photos to actually write a really stupid article. Whether or
    > not a photo is any good is in the eye of the beholder. It's always
    > been this way. A poorly done family photo may be as good as gold if
    > all the other photos are lost in a flood or fire. I say keep shooting.
    > Good or bad, just fire away and let's sort it all out later.


    Brown's commentary is hardly illuminating. He stirs together several
    different situations where pictures are taken and decides that the standard
    is uniformly terrible (except the good old days) and dismisses it all
    without any real attempt at analysis. He leads in the idea that to get good
    shots you have to take time, plan, concentrate etc and that in some ways the
    age of film forced one to do so. To me it is as obvious as dogs' balls that
    taking good shots takes time and thought but if some people don't want to
    and don't even see the need why is he complaining? It is far less apparent
    that the gigasnaps taken with phones (that don't involve much time or
    thought) are aiming to be 'good' or need to be, or that this has any
    connection at all to the poor standard of his visual wildlife stories
    competition.

    He partly contradicts himself by telling us that many of the competion shots
    were in fact 'good' but failed because they didn't fit the storytelling
    brief. I suggest that many of those phone gigasnaps tell a story, they
    exchange experiences, people, places and events. Most are not very clear or
    well composed images but those who exchange them don't give a damn, they
    aren't taking memorable images they are communicating their experiences and
    feelings of today with their friends and peers. So the one is technically
    strong and weak on story and the other has much story and little technique.
    But they share the same problem and they are all bad. What problem is that?
    Dunno, neither does Brown apparently. If he really wants to encourage
    better photography (in those who actually care) he needs to do some work and
    find out why so many apparently competent photograpers missed the mark in
    the wildlife competition or to run some courses in photo-storytelling. This
    inconclusive whining only fills column inches.


    David
     
    David Hare-Scott, Jun 26, 2013
    #3
  4. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Jun 26, 2013
    #4
  5. RichA

    Garvin Yee Guest

    On 6/24/2013 10:40 PM, RichA wrote:
    > An interesting article. Maybe not for its conclusions, depending on your view, but that someone took the time to at least think about things, something not done much in today's photography.
    >
    > http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life...most-so-forgettable/article12754086/?page=all
    >


    "Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a good crop."

    -Ansel Adams.

    --
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/34735015@N03/sets/72157623566520134/show/
    http://fineartamerica.com/profiles/garvin-yee.html
     
    Garvin Yee, Jun 27, 2013
    #5
  6. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Thursday, June 27, 2013 2:03:11 PM UTC-4, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > Scott Schuckert <> wrote:
    >
    > >In article <>, Bowser

    >
    > ><> wrote:

    >
    > >

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> It may be a problem for someone, but not for you or me. All those

    >
    > >> wasted frames mean nothing to me. What constitutes a good photo is

    >
    > >> highly subjective, so who is anyone to say what's good?

    >
    > >

    >
    > >Point is, if you don't take time and care to MAKE a picture good, it

    >
    > >won't be, by any standard - not any of them.

    >
    >
    >
    > True! But it's also true that the amount of time and
    >
    > the level of care necessary can often be virtually zero.
    >
    > Which is to say that every good image requires some,
    >
    > though perhaps infinitesimally small, amount of time and
    >
    > care... but so does every bad image.
    >
    >
    >
    > Which is which just depends on the highly subjective
    >
    > standard used by each viewer, not on how much time and
    >
    > care are taken.
    >
    >
    >
    > I'll give you a very significant practical example,
    >
    > which brings with it a lesson I learned long long ago.
    >
    > I do a lot of "people pictures", and very much enjoy
    >
    > photographing small children for their parents. Early
    >
    > on I learned not to show anything I am not willing to
    >
    > put my name on to the mother of any child. Cull first,
    >
    > pre-view with Mom second.
    >
    >
    >
    > Because there is no such thing as a "bad" picture of a
    >
    > Mother's child. Out of focus? Grainy? Wrong light?
    >
    > Wrong expression? Bad framing? Obnoxious environment?
    >
    > Not a problem if it shows anything that a mother can
    >
    > recognize as her baby.
    >
    >
    >
    > It is that subjective! If the subject is her kid, she
    >
    > will see it as wonderful. She is not wrong either!
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
    >
    > Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)


    You could probably find one good thing about most pictures, but she very well could be wrong, a bad photo is a bad photo. Just ask all those "stage mothers" out there. :)
     
    RichA, Jun 28, 2013
    #6
  7. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/27/2013 2:03 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > Scott Schuckert <> wrote:
    >> In article <>, Bowser
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> It may be a problem for someone, but not for you or me. All those
    >>> wasted frames mean nothing to me. What constitutes a good photo is
    >>> highly subjective, so who is anyone to say what's good?

    >>
    >> Point is, if you don't take time and care to MAKE a picture good, it
    >> won't be, by any standard - not any of them.

    >
    > True! But it's also true that the amount of time and
    > the level of care necessary can often be virtually zero.
    > Which is to say that every good image requires some,
    > though perhaps infinitesimally small, amount of time and
    > care... but so does every bad image.
    >
    > Which is which just depends on the highly subjective
    > standard used by each viewer, not on how much time and
    > care are taken.
    >
    > I'll give you a very significant practical example,
    > which brings with it a lesson I learned long long ago.
    > I do a lot of "people pictures", and very much enjoy
    > photographing small children for their parents. Early
    > on I learned not to show anything I am not willing to
    > put my name on to the mother of any child. Cull first,
    > pre-view with Mom second.
    >
    > Because there is no such thing as a "bad" picture of a
    > Mother's child. Out of focus? Grainy? Wrong light?
    > Wrong expression? Bad framing? Obnoxious environment?
    > Not a problem if it shows anything that a mother can
    > recognize as her baby.
    >
    > It is that subjective! If the subject is her kid, she
    > will see it as wonderful. She is not wrong either!
    >

    I tend to agree, and carry your thought a bit further. folks post their
    images for several reasons, which I am listing in no particular order.

    1. they realize something is wrong, and genuinely want help.

    2. The are seeking comments to help improve their photography.

    3.They want to show how "great" their images are.

    In many of the above cases, the maker somehow considers the image to me
    his child, in the same sanse as you describe above. thus any criticism
    shooed be tactful, to be taken seriously.
     
    PeterN, Jun 28, 2013
    #7
  8. RichA

    Guest

    On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 6:40:17 AM UTC+1, RichA wrote:

    > An interesting article. Maybe not for its conclusions, depending on your view, but that someone took the time to at least think about things, something not done much in today's photography.
    >
    > http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life...most-so-forgettable/article12754086/?page=all


    Ironic... an article that describes photography as 'a form of neurotic masturbation,' yet the author fails to notice that his article is nothing more than content-of-value-less 'form of neurotic masturbation.'


    NT
     
    , Jun 28, 2013
    #8
  9. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 22:40:17 -0700 (PDT), RichA <> wrote:
    : An interesting article. Maybe not for its conclusions, depending
    : on your view, but that someone took the time to at least think
    : about things, something not done much in today's photography.
    :
    : http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life...most-so-forgettable/article12754086/?page=all

    At least that article succeeds in demonstrating that pomposity is alive and
    well.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jun 29, 2013
    #9
  10. Bowser <> wrote:
    > On Mon, 24 Jun 2013 22:40:17 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    > wrote:


    >>An interesting article. Maybe not for its conclusions, depending on your view, but that someone took the time to at least think about things, something not done much in today's photography.
    >>
    >>http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life...most-so-forgettable/article12754086/?page=all


    > What I find amazing is that anyone actually give's a rat's ass about
    > all those photos to actually write a really stupid article.


    "neurotic masturbation".

    > Whether or
    > not a photo is any good is in the eye of the beholder. It's always
    > been this way.


    They had TONS of good photos (they admit it), they just choose
    a definition of good that was
    a) special (must tell a story THEY can see immediately)
    b) probably never told to the participants


    > A poorly done family photo may be as good as gold if
    > all the other photos are lost in a flood or fire. I say keep shooting.
    > Good or bad, just fire away and let's sort it all out later.


    And as to "the good old times when everything was better":
    I've been reviewing old photos (WWII vintage) photos to a
    certain topic. Tons of snapshots that are not even technically
    good. (Photographing someone from back and behind while
    urinating over the side (at sea) may be somewhat risqué,
    but not that original and of value, just as one example.)

    And then oh so many standard situations (e.g group photo, some
    lying or kneeling in the front row) that are staged rather badly
    and are a dozen a dime. They're only interesting (or in many
    cases, only somewhat interesting) in the context they belong
    to --- or to people that have a personal emotional connection.

    And that was when film was expensive (and probably hard to
    get in war time) and cameras were not cheap and people had
    to really think how to spend their few frames on the film.
    And they wasted them mostly on snapshots!

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jul 4, 2013
    #10
  11. RichA

    Peter Jason Guest

    On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 23:39:23 -0700 (PDT), RichA
    <> wrote:

    >On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 1:40:17 AM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
    >> An interesting article. Maybe not for its conclusions, depending on your view, but that someone took the time to at least think about things, something not done much in today's photography.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life...most-so-forgettable/article12754086/?page=all

    >
    >Let me guess, you are an avid iPhone shooter?



    My mother & her mother were avid snapshooters and
    gave almost all the photos away though the ones
    remaining added up to quite a few. The negatives
    (all 5x4 but a few smaller) were tossed without
    wrappings into a large communal shoe box that
    weight quite a few kilos. Alas, father threw the
    box and contents away after mother died and we're
    all very pissed off about it! The negs went back
    to the 1910s.

    What hope in hell do all those snaps via iPhones
    have!?
     
    Peter Jason, Jul 9, 2013
    #11
  12. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Tuesday, 9 July 2013 23:09:40 UTC+1, Peter Jason wrote:
    > On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 23:39:23 -0700 (PDT), RichA
    >
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > >On Tuesday, June 25, 2013 1:40:17 AM UTC-4, RichA wrote:

    >
    > >> An interesting article. Maybe not for its conclusions, depending on your view, but that someone took the time to at least think about things, something not done much in today's photography.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life...most-so-forgettable/article12754086/?page=all

    >
    > >

    >
    > >Let me guess, you are an avid iPhone shooter?

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > My mother & her mother were avid snapshooters and
    >
    > gave almost all the photos away though the ones
    >
    > remaining added up to quite a few. The negatives
    >
    > (all 5x4 but a few smaller) were tossed without
    >
    > wrappings into a large communal shoe box that
    >
    > weight quite a few kilos. Alas, father threw the
    >
    > box and contents away after mother died and we're
    >
    > all very pissed off about it! The negs went back
    >
    > to the 1910s.
    >
    >
    >
    > What hope in hell do all those snaps via iPhones
    >
    > have!?


    Lost in some 'cloud' somewhere for the next few hundred years.
     
    Whisky-dave, Jul 10, 2013
    #12
  13. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <51dd54e4$0$3740$>, Mitch Bujard
    <DontWantSpam-But_'Reply-to'> wrote:

    > Negatives can last over 100 years in a dry environment. They never last
    > in front of ignorance.


    they will have deteriorated, and there's only one copy so if the house
    burns down or other disaster, they're gone.

    > As for iPhone quick spans, how many of them would be worth the paper to
    > print them on ?


    some might, but printing is no longer required.

    how many negatives are worth the paper to print them on, which do need
    to be printed?

    > Notwidhstanding, a firne of mine mentionned that lady
    > who keeps an older phone because it contains SMS from her dead
    > daughter. Memories last as long as someone remembers.


    same for film.
     
    nospam, Jul 10, 2013
    #13
  14. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Wednesday, 10 July 2013 18:23:43 UTC+1, Mitch Bujard wrote:
    > On 2013-07-10 17:18:44 +0000, nospam said:
    >
    >
    >
    > >> Notwidhstanding, a firne of mine mentionned that lady

    >
    > >> who keeps an older phone because it contains SMS from her dead

    >
    > >> daughter. Memories last as long as someone remembers.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > same for film.

    >
    >
    >
    > My point exactly. Picture conservation is less a question of
    >
    > technology, as it is what people want to do with it. Or not.


    Also the uniqueness or rarity also has value, beyond the technical quality.

    > Trying to judge pictures only from technical quality standpoint does
    >
    > not factor in the human part of the equation.


    Or any other one viewpoint, but perhaps ultimamtly it depebds on how much someone is willing to spend on it to own it or even view it.
     
    Whisky-dave, Jul 11, 2013
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. dtoneyjr

    IBM Thinkpad (stink pad ) Laptop wireless

    dtoneyjr, Nov 3, 2006, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,004
    dtoneyjr
    Nov 3, 2006
  2. kenny

    Does Gateway STINK???

    kenny, Nov 29, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    31
    Views:
    912
    Dan Evans
    Nov 30, 2005
  3. Gazwad

    Cat stink

    Gazwad, Jan 21, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    880
  4. netgear wireless routers stink

    , Feb 27, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    620
    Meat Plow
    Feb 27, 2006
  5. BILLINE

    Are all WIFI cards basically the same...???

    BILLINE, Feb 14, 2009, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    486
Loading...

Share This Page