A different perspective...

thoth

In a recent thread by TonyCooper, the point was made (as is frequently the case around here) that his titling was not up to snuff. Some agreed and some did not and some were downright angry. But one of the loudest arguments was this: why are we bothering talking about this crap when we could be talking about photos?

This forum is the home to many such arguments which, seemingly, have little to do with how to take a photograph. There's titling, black and white versus color, old hcb versus new hcb (:D), processing versus not processing and the like. We discuss all sorts of things that, when you get right down to it, don't seem to have any usefulness. So why isn't that comment above a no-brainer for everyone?

Because we don't care about the things that other photographers care about!

D'Buggs recently posted a street shot in the people section and the response was underwhelming. Why? Because it lacked the technical qualities that folks in that forum prefer. It was blurry, yes, but who cares? This morning, I read Mr. Quiet respond to one of Benjamin's shots with 'His eyes are soft.' Once again, who cares? We don't. We read these technical critiques all the time and most of them are unimportant, or directly hinder, the intention of the photo.

This forum isn't about how to perfect every pixel in an image. It's ok if you have to blow out the sky to get the shot. It's ok if there are some missing shadow details. It's ok if you cut off some fingers once in a while. It's ok. This forum is about, however, teaching ourselves how to go out and find opportunities that those folks over in People (or Landscapes, or Other Cool Stuff) wouldn't. This place is about learning what to expect from a scene and how to tell that story to everyone else. It's not just about sharing photos, or critiquing technique. It's hardly about those things at all.

I would like to urge everyone to take a step back from the egos and ask yourself why you're being critiqued on this or that. Images do come first here but having a nice image doesn't exclude anyone from learning more about the rest of the art -- bringing the image to the viewer.

TonyCooper

thoth wrote:

In a recent thread by TonyCooper, the point was made (as is frequently the case around here) that his titling was not up to snuff. Some agreed and some did not and some were downright angry. But one of the loudest arguments was this: why are we bothering talking about this crap when we could be talking about photos?

This forum is the home to many such arguments which, seemingly, have little to do with how to take a photograph. There's titling, black and white versus color, old hcb versus new hcb (:D), processing versus not processing and the like. We discuss all sorts of things that, when you get right down to it, don't seem to have any usefulness. So why isn't that comment above a no-brainer for everyone?

Because we don't care about the things that other photographers care about!

D'Buggs recently posted a street shot in the people section and the response was underwhelming. Why? Because it lacked the technical qualities that folks in that forum prefer. It was blurry, yes, but who cares? This morning, I read Mr. Quiet respond to one of Benjamin's shots with 'His eyes are soft.' Once again, who cares? We don't. We read these technical critiques all the time and most of them are unimportant, or directly hinder, the intention of the photo.

[end quoted material]

In my comments regarding giving attention to the photograph and not the title I said that the focus should be on whether or not the photo was "interestingly captured and presented".

I understand that this is not a critique forum where images are critiqued to within a pixel of their being, but the paramount objective of a street shot should be for it to be interesting. When we start yawning before looking to see if the photograph is interesting because we don't like the title, we are - in my opinion - straying too far off the real mark.

While you can downplay the technical considerations somewhat, that "interestingly presented" needs to be in play. "Presented" means cropped effectively, rendered effectively in color or in b&w, and processed effectively to bring out whatever the photographer is attempting to show. You can stop assessing "presented" before you get to blown-out areas and other details, but the overall presentation has to work.

I think we do care to some extent. We care about "interesting" and "interestingly presented", but not about the details that go beyond these basic needs in a photograph. At least I do.

And, I still balk at the idea that the participants in this forum can't get past a title to decide if a photo is interesting.

thoth

TonyCooper wrote:

In my comments regarding giving attention to the photograph and not the title I said that the focus should be on whether or not the photo was "interestingly captured and presented".

I understand that this is not a critique forum where images are critiqued to within a pixel of their being, but the paramount objective of a street shot should be for it to be interesting. When we start yawning before looking to see if the photograph is interesting because we don't like the title, we are - in my opinion - straying too far off the real mark.

While you can downplay the technical considerations somewhat, that "interestingly presented" needs to be in play. "Presented" means cropped effectively, rendered effectively in color or in b&w, and processed effectively to bring out whatever the photographer is attempting to show. You can stop assessing "presented" before you get to blown-out areas and other details, but the overall presentation has to work.

I think we do care to some extent. We care about "interesting" and "interestingly presented", but not about the details that go beyond these basic needs in a photograph. At least I do.

And, I still balk at the idea that the participants in this forum can't get past a title to decide if a photo is interesting.

I hope you didn't feel like I was singling you out because I mentioned your post, Tony. It was simply mentionable in regards to this discussion. You're certainly not alone in your distaste for what is often emphasized around here.

Although I would agree that wanting to yawn before even opening the post is a little extreme, I can understand where he's coming from. Besides, I'm learning the hard way that, even though he may not always say things the way we'd like him to, he generally has our best interests in mind.

These photos, more than any other on this site I would venture, are intended to tell us something first and meet some technical criteria later. Because of that distinction we often find ourselves talking about things other than the content of the actual photos. Take B.D.'s favorite statement, for example: get closer. Many of my highest praised shots were taken with an 80-200 2.8 lens from quite a distance away (no, I wasn't standing in the middle of the carnival ride when I shot the couple twirling by ). Did I get closer? Nope. Is it worth discussing why I didn't get closer but the shots still work? Yup. Does that have a damn thing to do with the critique of the photo itself? Not a chance (well, very little chance). But, closeness related closely enough with clicking the shutter that it's ok to talk about it.

Titling (or any number of other topics which cause irritation) is a bit more abstract but, in my opinion, affects the viewing experience way more than whether or not I was physically standing 6 inches from my subject. So, for me, it's worth discussing how to properly use titles so that they benefit the classification and/or content of an image. There are other examples that surely fit here also but this is the hot one so I'll leave it at that.

In the end, candid shots work, or don't work, on a very fine edge. Every little thing we do, or don't do, affects how that image will be received by the viewer. I would go so far as to say that they way one posts a comment in the sports section might even affect how their street shot is received in this one. So, if so much is important, why not talk about it?

damonff

yes

phillybikeboy

thoth wrote:

Titling (or any number of other topics which cause irritation) is a bit more abstract but, in my opinion, affects the viewing experience way more than whether or not I was physically standing 6 inches from my subject. So, for me, it's worth discussing how to properly use titles so that they benefit the classification and/or content of an image. There are other examples that surely fit here also but this is the hot one so I'll leave it at that.

In the end, candid shots work, or don't work, on a very fine edge. Every little thing we do, or don't do, affects how that image will be received by the viewer.

Back in the day, when Pearl Jam released Ten, I briefly wondered why they called it that. It was their first album, and contained eleven tracks. It didn't make a lick of sense, but I didn't care, because the music was great.* I know Son Volt's Trace is perhaps the best album I've ever heard, though I have no notion of the reasoning behind the title. Music is about music, and not whatever it's titles. OTOH, there have been a ton of recordings with contextual or clever titles that I've forgotten because the music was absolute shite.

Does a great photograph need a title? Does a pretty good one? I don't think so. An image says what it says. If you feel it needs a title, maybe, instead it just needs to be a better picture. A so-so photo with a great title isn't a better picture--in the end it's still a so-so photo.



*BTW, later I fond that Ten referred to former NBA star Mookie Blaylock, who wore the number 10. Pearl Jam was originally named Mookie Blaylock, but had to change their name due to copyright concerns.

rainbow

phillybikeboy wrote:

Does a great photograph need a title? Does a pretty good one? I don't think so. An image says what it says. If you feel it needs a title, maybe, instead it just needs to be a better picture. A so-so photo with a great title isn't a better picture--in the end it's still a so-so photo.

/

Like your story on "Ten".

But any photograph thread on DGrin needs a title. Not for the photo, but for the thread. And the issue surfaces because the title is seen before the photo. Thus the discussion...

phillybikeboy

rainbow wrote:

Like your story on "Ten".

But any photograph thread on DGrin needs a title. Not for the photo, but for the thread. And the issue surfaces because the title is seen before the photo. Thus the discussion...

I get that every thread needs a title, but that's different than what that has to do with that photo. You could just slug each thread with a date and location, or whatever else. It really doesn't matter. If people are critiquing the titles of the threads, they're really missing the point of a forum devoted to photography.

rteest42

phillybikeboy wrote:

I get that every thread needs a title, but that's different than what that has to do with that photo. You could just slug each thread with a date and location, or whatever else. It really doesn't matter. If people are critiquing the titles of the threads, they're really missing the point of a forum devoted to photography.

I am a visual person, who is also a reader and a writer. So my artistic and information flow comes not simply via the photographic or painted image but from the blurb below, beside or over.

I know this about myself. Even if I am not shopping for tile or wallpaper or sweaters or whatever else is in the fine print in a magazine or catalog, I find myself drawn from the visual of the image to the written word. In other words, I can't idly flip through a magazine. I end up reading.

I am going to a quilt show this week. And I will be as interested in reading the story behind the quilts I see, the techniques used as I will be in admiring the quilt itself. I feel somehow cheated when I look next to the quilt for a story and it says nothing but Arrangement in Blue, by XX.
Can the quilt stand by itself? If its good, sure. But do you feel a bit more invested when you learn about its genesis? Absolutely.

Not every photo tosses a title out to you. Some express a title very easily. The two go hand in hand very often.

Can a bad photo slide by with a good title? Can a bad title slide by with a good photo??

bdcolen

phillybikeboy wrote:

Back in the day, when Pearl Jam released Ten, I briefly wondered why they called it that. It was their first album, and contained eleven tracks. It didn't make a lick of sense, but I didn't care, because the music was great.* I know Son Volt's Trace is perhaps the best album I've ever heard, though I have no notion of the reasoning behind the title. Music is about music, and not whatever it's titles. OTOH, there have been a ton of recordings with contextual or clever titles that I've forgotten because the music was absolute shite.

Does a great photograph need a title? Does a pretty good one? I don't think so. An image says what it says. If you feel it needs a title, maybe, instead it just needs to be a better picture. A so-so photo with a great title isn't a better picture--in the end it's still a so-so photo.



*BTW, later I fond that Ten referred to former NBA star Mookie Blaylock, who wore the number 10. Pearl Jam was originally named Mookie Blaylock, but had to change their name due to copyright concerns/

What Damon said.

thoth

I would like to caution everyone who might believe that this thread is about titles. It's not. I posted this in the hope that everyone would stop and think about how much of what we do here on DGrin goes into how our images are viewed. If you're stuck simply arguing about titles then I'm afraid you're missing out.

bdcolen

thoth wrote:

I would like to caution everyone who might believe that this thread is about titles. It's not. I posted this in the hope that everyone would stop and think about how much of what we do here on DGrin goes into how our images are viewed. If you're stuck simply arguing about titles then I'm afraid you're missing out.

Would you please expand on this, Travis.

TonyCooper

thoth wrote:

I would like to caution everyone who might believe that this thread is about titles. It's not. I posted this in the hope that everyone would stop and think about how much of what we do here on DGrin goes into how our images are viewed. If you're stuck simply arguing about titles then I'm afraid you're missing out.

I take it that your warning is "Make waves, and you'll sink your chances of having your photographic submissions viewed objectively".

True enough, it seems.

thoth

bdcolen wrote:

Would you please expand on this, Travis.

I can certainly try but I doubt I'll be able to say anything that I haven't said in my previous posts.

My purpose for posting this was because there seem to be quite a few folks who are discontent with what is being critiqued when they post a photo. There are many things that impact how are images are received by the viewer and, when some of the less obvious ones are critiqued, folks start asking that question: why are you not paying attention to the photo?

The fact is that there are tons of things that affect us as viewers. Sure, the technical merits of the shot affect us but those are [generally] obvious. Other things, though, like titles or borders or color (or quality of color) or B&W or homeless content or whatever else you can think of certainly have an impact as well. To go even further, your status as a photographer (like it or not) greatly impacts what we see when you post. Hell, your status as a person even plays an important role. My point is that there are tons of 'intangibles' that affect how we perceive a photograph and, should those things be critiqued when we post, I believe it's part of the genre. Us street folks are far less likely to hand out praise due to pretty colors or sharp eyes than the rest of this forum.

Or...

Candid shooters (Street, PJ, Documentary, etc) are far more likely to critique everything that affects their viewing of a photo than other shooters in other genres.

I think that sums it up nicely.

thoth

TonyCooper wrote:

I take it that your warning is "Make waves, and you'll sink your chances of having your photographic submissions viewed objectively".

True enough, it seems.

Bleh, no. I was just being defensive as I didn't want everything thinking I was starting another titling rant.

I made some pretty good waves not long ago and I don't think my submissions have been judged harshly because of it. I'm pretty sure most of the regulars know how they feel about me and that affects their judgement but that fits nicely into my reason for this thread.

Patti

thoth wrote:

The fact is that there are tons of things that affect us as viewers. Sure, the technical merits of the shot affect us but those are [generally] obvious. Other things, though, like titles or borders or color (or quality of color) or B&W or homeless content or whatever else you can think of certainly have an impact as well. To go even further, your status as a photographer (like it or not) greatly impacts what we see when you post. Hell, your status as a person even plays an important role. My point is that there are tons of 'intangibles' that affect how we perceive a photograph and, should those things be critiqued when we post, I believe it's part of the genre. Us street folks are far less likely to hand out praise due to pretty colors or sharp eyes than the rest of this forum.

Or...

Candid shooters (Street, PJ, Documentary, etc) are far more likely to critique everything that affects their viewing of a photo than other shooters in other genres.

I think that sums it up nicely.

So, we are what we post.

I don't know that we are more likely to critique as we are to concentrate on different aspects of an image. One of the many things I like about the street & pj forum is that folks here look beyond the pixel counting and the obsession with being 'tack sharp' found on the other forums. I love the focus on emotional/artistic/story-telling merit rather than whether you can cut yourself on the sharpness of the image that dominates elsewhere. I love that there is so little discussion of what gear you used for the shot and more about the circumstances of the situation and the artistic goal of the shooter.

That said, it is really interesting to learn what technicalities ARE judged with this genre, things I've never really considered, like titles. Why do we need them at all other than to accommodate the requirements of posting a thread here? Why does a title impact the response of viewer before the photo is even viewed? These are things I've never considered but that now occupying my waking moments. Thanks for the food for thought.

rutt

I used to pick nits with Ginger over the baroque frames she used as borders for some of her shots. I seem to remember telling her one looked like something from inside a New Orleans bordello. She also loved making "posters" with text, like this one:



I also hated this technique and used to argue with her about it. Sometimes she paid attention and sometimes not. She had her own compass.

My point? All these things ARE important. They were important enough for her to spend the time to make them and important for us to quibble over. For the dgrin/street&pj blurb book, I shaved off all the borders and frames around submissions to make them all consistent. B.D. almost withdrew his shots from that book because his black borders are important to him.

Travis, I think your point is good if subtle. Presentation is important and probably more important to Street as a genre, where impact is probably subtle.

Patti

I'm obviously not observant enough. I hadn't really been conscious of bd's use of black borders until you drew attention to it rutt.

phillybikeboy

thoth wrote:

My purpose for posting this was because there seem to be quite a few folks who are discontent with what is being critiqued when they post a photo. There are many things that impact how are images are received by the viewer and, when some of the less obvious ones are critiqued, folks start asking that question: why are you not paying attention to the photo?

I suspect that question cuts both ways. "Why are you not paying attention to the photo?" Why doesn't the photo command my attention? When people start to pick at the nits of a image, it's a sure sign the content didn't connect.

thoth

phillybikeboy wrote:

I suspect that question cuts both ways. "Why are you not paying attention to the photo?" Why doesn't the photo command my attention? When people start to pick at the nits of a image, it's a sure sign the content didn't connect.

I agree and think this is step one in the typical critique around here. If we don't like the image we usually don't bother with the rest. So, if you're at the point that someone's carrying on about your title then you've likely created a decent photo.

rutt

I was thinking about this a little more, and you know, the biggest title criticisms from B.D. (and subsequently others as we have become hypnotized) is when the title has a real mismatch with the picture. The title is "African Elephant in a Mating Rage" and the picture shows a big gray field. This makes one think the photographer just doesn't see how far away he was from showing that elephant in all his crazy majesty. So, I guess, I'm saying that the title critiques have a real place in helping the photographer see whether or not the audience see it the same way s/he does.

bdcolen

rutt wrote:

I was thinking about this a little more, and you know, the biggest title criticisms from B.D. (and subsequently others as we have become hypnotized) is when the title has a real mismatch with the picture. The title is "African Elephant in a Mating Rage" and the picture shows a big gray field. This makes one think the photographer just doesn't see how far away he was from showing that elephant in all his crazy majesty. So, I guess, I'm saying that the title critiques have a real place in helping the photographer see whether or not the audience see it the same way s/he does.

Well, yes and no. Or know. Of course there is the mismatch problem. But then there is the larger issue - and here's where most folks seem to disagree with me - or vice versa:

Once you post a photo what matters is not what you think it is or shows, but rather what the viewer thinks it is or shows. If you need to tell the viewer what to see, I believe - and of course there are always exceptions to every rule - the photo has failed or you have failed as a photographer. This goes back to what I posted one day about poetry with "hidden meaning."

I prefer not to use titles. Ever. But clearly there are circumstances when we must use them. When that is the case I would prefer to see the simplest, most straightforward titles possible, rather than attempts at cleverness or - God forbid - cuteness.

But all of the above is my opinion. Other people have theirs, and theirs are just as valid as mine.

The problem, it seems to me, is that we're losing sight of what this forum is for, and of why we have formed a community here. And this gets to a number of Travis's points - if I've understood them properly:

When all is said and done, this is a site where content should trump form. Yes, strong content captured and displayed in a technically outstanding manner will usually be more appreciated than equally strong content that lacks technical excellence. But Street Photography and Photo Journalism - and I will point out once again that there is very, very, very little real "photo journalism" posted here - is, when all is said and done, about the subject - the story. Sure, we want the images to be well exposed, color balanced, focused properly. But when we think about some of the great iconic street photos and photo journalism we realize that what we remember is not whether the eyes are sharp, but how the images moved us - to gasp, to laugh, to cry, to think. I'd rather have real ambiguity in a street photo than 20 mgp and eyes that cut my fingers. But to be perfectly honest, I feel the same way about wedding photos, about portraits, and about most other forms of photography.

The good thing about this forum, besides the community that has formed around it, is that on a quite regular basis people are displaying photos that say something, images that do prompt us to pause and consider. To be perfectly honest, I can't say that about most of the other Dgrin Forums, where the emphasis is on technical perfection, on the 'mine is bigger than, sharper than, more colorful than' yours school of photography, rather than on photography as an expressive medium that helps us observe the world around us.

End of sermon.

If I may paraphrase Ted Grant, the 'father of Canadian photo journalism' and a regular on the Leica Users Group, "(*&$@%^ people, how about we all shut up and go take some pictures!" (Right, Tina?)

Richard

bdcolen wrote:

If I may paraphrase Ted Grant, the 'father of Canadian photo journalism' and a regular on the Leica Users Group, "(*&$@%^ people, how about we all shut up and go take some pictures!" (Right, Tina?)

Amen.

Tina Manley

bdcolen wrote:

If I may paraphrase Ted Grant, the 'father of Canadian photo journalism' and a regular on the Leica Users Group, "(*&$@%^ people, how about we all shut up and go take some pictures!" (Right, Tina?)

Amen, BD!!

(I think Ted is busy at the Olympics right now, taking pictures!)

Tina

thoth

bdcolen wrote:

If I may paraphrase Ted Grant, the 'father of Canadian photo journalism' and a regular on the Leica Users Group, "(*&$@%^ people, how about we all shut up and go take some pictures!" (Right, Tina?)

I really wish every discussion with the possibility of developing a little understanding in this community wasn't punctuated with "shut up and shoot." We do shoot -- all of us -- and then we post. And then we're smashed over the head, from a direction we didn't know existed, with the critique hammer. Then we're pissed and then we shoot and then we don't post.

Where's the harm in explaining ourselves for the sake of our relationship with the rest of the community?

phillybikeboy

thoth wrote:

I really wish every discussion with the possibility of developing a little understanding in this community wasn't punctuated with "shut up and shoot." We do shoot -- all of us -- and then we post. And then we're smashed over the head, from a direction we didn't know existed, with the critique hammer. Then we're pissed and then we shoot and then we don't post.

Where's the harm in explaining ourselves for the sake of our relationship with the rest of the community?

We used to have a saying out in Oklahoma. "If you're going to run with the big dogs, you have to pee in the tall grass." Now, I don't really know what that means, or if it's applicable here, but it's folksy, and I like it.

Yes, it's never fun getting hit from a direction you didn't expect, but sometimes that's exactly what's called for. The problem with asking for critique in an open forum is you get what you ask for. That's also the great thing about it. When dealing with a subject as subjective as Street, you're going to get responses that vary wildly, because hardly anyone can agree on just exactly what the hell it is.

thoth

phillybikeboy wrote:

We used to have a saying out in Oklahoma. "If you're going to run with the big dogs, you have to pee in the tall grass." Now, I don't really know what that means, or if it's applicable here, but it's folksy, and I like it.

phillybikeboy wrote:

Yes, it's never fun getting hit from a direction you didn't expect, but sometimes that's exactly what's called for. The problem with asking for critique in an open forum is you get what you ask for. That's also the great thing about it. When dealing with a subject as subjective as Street, you're going to get responses that vary wildly, because hardly anyone can agree on just exactly what the hell it is.

I agree, on all points. I had hoped this thread would help folks realize that we're not just throwing hammers for the hell of it around here. Maybe it is a bit too ambitious.

rutt

Travis, it's good but unrewarding work. Eventually people will figure it out or not. Some may need to be told more than once that blunt critique is a gift.

phillybikeboy

thoth wrote:

I had hoped this thread would help folks realize that we're not just throwing hammers for the hell of it around here. Maybe it is a bit too ambitious.

It's an admirable goal, but understand, I don't think they're doing it "for the hell of it." I think a lot of, if not most people, are trying to be helpful. They just don't know how. There's a tendency to err on the side of constructive criticism. Rather than say the shot is poorly conceived and conveys nothing remotely of interest, the default is to suggest how to make the shot better (basically, polishing a turd). While it may be the polite approach, you're correct to point out that it's not not really instructive or useful.

Still, one has to think that the Dr. Phil, "What the hell were you thinking?" approach would discourage more people than the way things currently stand.