Are we too Rigid?
After perusing this board and FM's board for some time, and lately in getting comments on shots at the photo of the year website, I noticed a trend, pixel peeping and strict adherence to a perceived photographic style.
I guess, I'm asking what happened to photography as an art form? Has the digital form of viewing it on the limited size of a monitor changed how we see art?
So often in critiques I see, the "it shouldn't be centered, it should be sharper, you need the eyes, you need both of the eyes, I want to see everytthing and nothing should be cropped out" etc., type of comments.
After visiting an art museum last weekend and seeing huge paintings that were simply amazing, I noticed that close up, not so amazing, farther away to bring the whole of it in, amazing. Of course the truly amazing part is the talent in being able to paint something when you're on top of the canvas to give the right effect standing away from it.
Anyway, that's where the pixel peeping issue comes in. Who stands on top of a 20x30 photo? If there is noise, and you're standing a few feet away, does it not blend in and look no different than if it was tack sharp? We view these pics at high res on a monitor in a small size and we seem to be a tad too prissy about wanting it to be super sharp.
Then it comes to comp and preference. The obvious dead space issues do stand out like a sore thumb, but sometimes a centered subject can work and is done so intentionally. Sometimes the crop is intentional in leaving things out. I know eyes are the doorway to the soul, and all that crap, but sometimes a mood can be conveyed without having them as focal points.
I guess with the increasing affordability of photography as a hobby and the internet allowing everyone to participate in sharing work has somewhat started a pop culture type of a mass produced ideal of what's good and what's not.
Now this is not just based on comments I receive on my work. Overall, the comments I get are very helpful. However, I too often see something good, and read the usual things I listed above. What troubles me is how does someone who is just learning their style get decent feedback? Mechanics is one thing, expression and impression are others. I feel I've learned my camera and its lenses well enough along with the mechanics of photography to begin to experiment a little with expression instead of just simple captures.
Are there sites that concentrate more on style in critiques rather than biased and very often generic acceptance of what one likes?
It seems that photo critiques are akin to people commenting on paintings where they only like ones that look real and don't care for impressionism, cubism, etc.
Everyone's thoughts on this would be appreciated.
I guess, I'm asking what happened to photography as an art form? Has the digital form of viewing it on the limited size of a monitor changed how we see art?
So often in critiques I see, the "it shouldn't be centered, it should be sharper, you need the eyes, you need both of the eyes, I want to see everytthing and nothing should be cropped out" etc., type of comments.
After visiting an art museum last weekend and seeing huge paintings that were simply amazing, I noticed that close up, not so amazing, farther away to bring the whole of it in, amazing. Of course the truly amazing part is the talent in being able to paint something when you're on top of the canvas to give the right effect standing away from it.
Anyway, that's where the pixel peeping issue comes in. Who stands on top of a 20x30 photo? If there is noise, and you're standing a few feet away, does it not blend in and look no different than if it was tack sharp? We view these pics at high res on a monitor in a small size and we seem to be a tad too prissy about wanting it to be super sharp.
Then it comes to comp and preference. The obvious dead space issues do stand out like a sore thumb, but sometimes a centered subject can work and is done so intentionally. Sometimes the crop is intentional in leaving things out. I know eyes are the doorway to the soul, and all that crap, but sometimes a mood can be conveyed without having them as focal points.
I guess with the increasing affordability of photography as a hobby and the internet allowing everyone to participate in sharing work has somewhat started a pop culture type of a mass produced ideal of what's good and what's not.
Now this is not just based on comments I receive on my work. Overall, the comments I get are very helpful. However, I too often see something good, and read the usual things I listed above. What troubles me is how does someone who is just learning their style get decent feedback? Mechanics is one thing, expression and impression are others. I feel I've learned my camera and its lenses well enough along with the mechanics of photography to begin to experiment a little with expression instead of just simple captures.
Are there sites that concentrate more on style in critiques rather than biased and very often generic acceptance of what one likes?
It seems that photo critiques are akin to people commenting on paintings where they only like ones that look real and don't care for impressionism, cubism, etc.
Everyone's thoughts on this would be appreciated.
0
Comments
It's much harder (impossible?) to teach greatness.
Sure we do get some who are proficient enough to break the established rules and make up their own. But those people don't need dgrin criticism; they are ready to try to reach some sort of larger audience. Try telling Damon that one of his shots is too centered or that he had a big blown area. He'd leave and never come back. (Well, actually, he did.)
Something I try to convey to beginners is to not rely on "critiques" from the anonymous hordes out there that like to build themselves up by tearing others down. If you want critiques, meaningful critiques, get them from someone you know, and preferably from someone you know can take and has taken the kinds of photos you want and are trying to produce yourself.
Do not listen to armchair photographers who pretend to be knowledgeable but in reality can't produce more than hot air. Spend time instead looking at photos that inspire you. Why do they inspire you? Study them, what kind of composition was used, what lighting is being employed. Try to duplicate what you see. An hour spent in studying a single inspiring photo is worth more than a day of reading hack critiques, and ingesting questionable "feedback". Trust me, this is no joke.
When you shoot a photo, and are sitting down to analyze it, take some time to figure out for yourself if it compares favorably to the style and intent you had for it. If it falls short, determine how and why it fell short. What would you do different next time to get closer to your ideal? Developing your ability to self critique is invaluable, because it helps you develop your own style, if you slavishly rely on others for critique, you will stunt your photographic growth. You will depend on the kudos from others as your source of motivation rather than the sense of satisfaction you get from doing what you set out to do, regardless of what others think.
I personally find little value in critique sites and forums, and recommend that beginners use them sparingly (if at all) for many of the reasons I mentioned above. If you are trying to develop your own style, then who cares what others think about it, right? I mean, if you care what others think about it, and modify your style to be acceptable to the lowest common denominator, whose style is it really? Trend setters make and promote their own style, they don't follow the pack, they lead it.
And one last point, style is not learned from without, it is developed from within. A style is nothing more than a way of working that you find successful and personally satisfying, so much so that you repeat this over and over. And that is something that only you can develop over time by actually doing something over and over and over again. Experience is the key, not external critiques.
"Failure is feedback. And feedback is the breakfast of champions." - fortune cookie
measurebation should be done back behind closed doors where it belongs.
i get such a giggle out of people's "critiques" of sharpness ... "mine's sharper than yours!" "you could do better if you had a $2000 lens" blah blah bladiblah. guess what? khaos is right on, imo, photographs are so cool when printed and viewed on paper, from the proper distance! embrace the noise, become one with the noise. bathe in it's simple noisiness! sharp? sharp? go look at many many famous photographs and see if they cut your eyeballs like some of today's digital shots do
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
What I usually find lacking in critiques is that are always provided from the critics point of view. No one asks before critiquing "what were you trying to do with the shot?" The advice not to center your subject is usually good advice but does not not apply to all shots.
With the advent of digital photography and the subsequent growth of internet forums the focus has centered way too much on the technology, pixel counting, looking at pics at a closeness they were never intended to be viewed at, and countless debates over which is the perfect camera.
When I receive critiques the first thing I think about is the work of the person giving the critique. If it is somebody whose work I admire I pay it more heed than I would to some other folks. I still have to consider the critique and determine if its applicable to what I was trying to capture when I took the shot.
In the end the only critique that matters is your own. We all have to make our own style. You have been making great strides. Your series of extreme close-ups from the zoo were outstanding and very distinctly you. No external critique could have showed you the way to that style.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Anyhow, I have to agree with Shay. At first I was all excited about the critiques forum in here. A way for people to tell me what was good and bad about my shots. Then I took a class at Better Photo where there was a specific goal for the shots (it was a composition class) and the critiques were given 1) by a no kidding professional (rather than no kidding professional AND possibly no talent hacks - like ME) and 2) with the intent of teaching rather than whipping as it were. I learned so much more from the Better Photo experience (although, I'm not sure I was 100% satisfied with them for various reasons) that I haven't done much whipping post stuff since. Of course, I haven't done much photography at all recently
I do like what Rutt said though. Lots of forums are on ramps to the world of photography. It is where lots and lots of people come when they are just beginning with digital (and perhaps otherwise) photography - at least those who aren't so inclined or financially able to go back to school and really learn the trade. So to that end, yes there are a lot of people that harp on "proper" composition, tack sharpness, perfect exposure, etc. etc. We all probably know that some of the best photos we have ever seen have broken one or more of these "rules," but those great photographers break the rules not out of ignorance but out of design. You can't do that if you don't know the rules. So to a certain extent, on boards like this, I don't necessarily see the "rule-mongering" to be that bad.
And here's another thing. If you carefully limit someone's options, I believe you will enhance their creativity. If people have too many ways to do things, they will be overwhelmed with choices. For beginners - like me - it is important to limit their photo taking options to strict rule following IMHO. As a photographer progresses, he or she can be more lax on these limits or impose other limits entirely. The key is to be able to do so knowingly and with a purpose in mind.
That's what I say anyhow.
http://photos.mikelanestudios.com/
http://photos.mikelanestudios.com/
If you look at only the great works of the great artists, you might be inclined to believe they arrived at that style all in a moment. But in reality, the things you don't see are the multitude of small drawings, practice paintings, all leading up to that point that we look at and say "ahhhhh."
In short, there was lots and lots of practice before they made those great paintings. And much of it was probably bad.
I don't disagree totally with Shay (we certainly agree on the experience part). Developing one's style is important. But not everyone at this point of the game is trying to be a trend setter. I'm certainly not. I'm still at the "practice" stage, where I need to shoot lots and lots of bad stuff, and get gentle nudges in the right direction by those who have been there before. I have ideas of where I want to go with this, a new direction not often taken, but I know that if I try to go there right now, I'll just make bad photos out of my idea.
I've learned more from dgrin in a few months than I ever did taking loads of average shots (and one or two great ones) on film before I got tired of mediocrity and put the camera down for a few years. Slogging along learning your own way through the muck is one thing, but having someone point you in a different direction every once in a while is another. Would the creativity of a great artist of some bygone time have been snuffed by people telling them to do it a different way? I think if the vision and self-determination is there to break new ground, it'll happen anyhow.
So I'm with rutt: learn the basics here, learn the rules, put in your time. Then when you're ready, learn when to break the rules. Great post Khaos. I think it's a good thing for us all to be reminded that not everyone is trying to make shots in the classic form. But perhaps it's more of a matter of being sensitive enough in our critiques to say, "Nice shot, but if you were trying to do this with the shot, you might try a less centered composition."
http://cusac.smugmug.com
embrace the noise, become one with the noise. bathe in it's simple noisiness! sharp? sharp?
:encore
http://cusac.smugmug.com
My own experience from posting one of my own images in the Whipping Post is this:
I don't really give a rat's patooty (to quote Andy) whether anyone else liked that image, because I liked it. I am interested in WHY they don't like it and how they see that it could be improved. Not to determine my own style (which is definitely far from fully developed), but to see what impact my style has on others. Interesting, but not gonna change me or get me second guessing myself.
I've also been struggling with how to make the Whipping Post really useful, and maybe, as Shay indicates, I'm wasting my time.
I do think that there is value in the critiques we do there, and especially for the critiquer...you end up studying and evaluating an image and learn more about your own style by doing so.
I would love for the WP critiques to move beyond the surface of technical details and deeper into the composition, emotion, etc. of shot. We get some of that, but not a lot. In fact, I don't think there's a whole lot of traffic there, personally. Maybe that's because most people agree with Shay about online critique....
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
You know what'd be neat. A photo assignments room / topic. Give people a topic, a compositional element to focus on (like line or rhythm or something like that), some camera setting or piece of equipment (eg this week we are all going to use a graduated ND filter for our shots), or what have you. Have someone give a bit of a lesson on the things to look for when shooting for the week. Steer everyone in one direction and see what you get. Let people post their 5 or 10 best shots.
I think that would be a great opportunity to distinguish dgrin as a place where people can come to learn from each other rather than harp on each other.
http://photos.mikelanestudios.com/
I agree about getting creative but its not limited by your equipment. You just have to understand your tools and use them effectively. Its not about the amount or lack of reach of your lens or camera. The only limit on our creativity is not our equipment but our own self-imposed limitations.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I absolutely agree! 100%
I agree so much, I see purple! Red, maybe! And I don't think I had better discuss it. I have known and broken the rules for years, in just about every part of my life. Oh, it would have been so much easier on me.........in areas, I should have been more "normal".
But in art, well, see my "snapshot" rants. It is a subject where I just snapped. And I can see a snapshot, too. I mean a photograph where I see no merit for me, actually. But I would not call it a snapshot..........well, this is starting to be my own little rant.
I do agree with Rutt, I agree with myself, too, when I say that too often the words one learns to use on the internet such as "In My Humble Opinion", such popular terminology it has been simplified to IMHO, too often those words are lacking here.
In time one learns how to feed the hungry masses according to the tastes of the group they are in. If everyone is dressed up, one does not usually wear jeans. Here one usually follows, I do, I try to, the rules of the group, if one wants positive feedback. If one, in other words, wants "gratification" of any sort. Not following the usually observed customs tends to distract the "audience", give them something to chew on, and the good can then be discarded, that is my opinion.
One reason I say I agree with Rutt is that he has followed what he says.
And I know how much he admires greatness!
One problem with a forum, for me, is that I can't talk back, the time lag is too great, etc. for a discussion. That is a frustration I try to anticipate, but sometimes I do get surprised.
I do not react well to surprises.
I absolutely agree with you, Khaos.
Now there is another side of the coin, if one wants to learn what the prevailing rules are, the usual way of doing things, one needs to be told. But I think, I really do, that there is a gentle way of doing this. That is another art. Teaching is, IMO, most humble, an ART, too.
And this goes for all boards. I had a photograph, one photograph, I can produce it, too. It should be the test for almost any forum. the photograph is "different".
My ex pro photographer friend, who also hates frames, titles, etc. Speaks her mind, she loved the photograph. My other friend who LOVES everything I do, and that is not possilble, IMO, again, but it is nice for me in times where I need solace. They both loved this photograph.
It was allowed to die nicely here, quietly, on the people thread. I am not sure if it got one comment.
Oh FM it was blasted to kingdom come! I have not heard such strong criticism. It was so strongly blasted that it was quite humorous. I don't know those people well enough to know who blasted it, but I could not even be sensitive to that criticism. First the photo broke many rules, second its audience would be limited. Third the the vehemence with which that photo was blasted said more, IMO, about the person doing the blasting than it did about the photo or about me.
What hurts me is when someone I greatly respect blasts something I have done. I can't anticipate all criticism, so I can't head it all off (which I would like to do when I do not want the value of a photo to be neglected for a particular flaw that I have ignored). And I was having problems with WB (white balance) for awhile, I am glad that I was helped through that, but it was a trial for me until the problem was resolved. Even now I forget to check the WB sometimes. And it hurts me, well it does. Also I tend to forget to sharpen my photos, I am not trying to prove anything, I have no intentions there to "not" sharpen, I am just excited about some aspect of the photo that does not have to do with sharpness, so when the attention centers on the lack of sharpness, I have wasted a good photo:
Does this not sound like dating, or a cocktail party?
Oh, to be so famous......................one would not dare........
ginger (I agree with all of you, wisdom from the wise and a new word, too: measureation) Thanks, all.
And especially Khaos............and the rest of you. You are either all right, or you are all wrong, but you are all together in this! We are, I should say!
I think everyone else like the photos but not me.
I switched to nature shots woods,creeks, and some wildlife ...still nothing
Then cityscapes,nightshots,old buildings...oh yea now were talking
I'll probaly get killed being downtown all the time...but hey I died doing something I like
These are the shots that get me going
I think it's just a road you have to travel
I shoot for myself if I like it...then it's a good photo
I quit trying to figure out why people like this photo over that photo a long time ago...everyone has differen't taste
The only thing I find useful in critiques is from an technical aspect ...noise,wb that kind of stuff
Don't get me wrong I like it when people say good shot..I think we all do.
But it's like asking what your favorite color ?
And I have learned a lot form this and other forums.
Thanks
Fred
http://www.facebook.com/Riverbendphotos
But if I were to be wondering what to do about a particular photo, or worried about entering one in something, or whatever..............I would bring it to the whipping post. I think I did that with the one, the only one that went KPOTD. It is not the greatest photo in the world, IMO, but it is probably as good as it could be for what it is. Andy said that it is a good photo, a fine photo, what are you whining about, kind of, he did not say whining. I looked again, and I liked it better.
Or say a photo was "off" a bit, in my opinion, I might bring it to find out why it was bothering me, or why it might be bothering me.
I don't use the whipping post often as I don't have those problems, not that often. I don't do "assignments", mostly, I can dump what I don't like. But I think the whipping post could be valuable, but only if it were known why the photo was being presented.
I am thinking here of Hugh Grant, I think that is his name, on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno (the only time I have watched Jay Leno with great appreciation).
The line I am thinking about is "What the Hell were you thinking?" Sometimes that is all I could say. As a photographer of sometimes weird photos such as the Fourth of July Folly, I understand that question, and I don't mind when it is weird. Also as a person commenting, I can certainly understand the question, I have wanted to ask it many times. Also, if someone says is this good? I have been dying to answer, "no".......
But as someone who has just been trying to fit in, when it is a "fit in" type photo, well, I don't want it whipped, or I do want it whipped to find out why I am not fitting in. Really that is just about all that you all can tell me, IMO. You can't tell me if I am good or bad as an artist, but you can tell me why something may not "fit". And where things get hairy, IMO, is when someone forgets the limits of the teacher and gives absolutes, such as "bad" rather than "not fitting in....." why something may not be appreciated, or something.......
There is really a limit as to what you can tell me. And I am probably not going to participate in many games of criticism, unless it is for a reason of benefit to me.
ginger (not wanting to go on and on, but not knowing if I am making sense.)
So like you said, it's got little to do with the equipment. And I agree.
http://photos.mikelanestudios.com/
Great input.
Well, I'm going to be on my spirtual journey photography wise. My shutter will click many times and the delete key will be acive as I plod forth in opening my eyes and mind in seeing and photographing not just subjects, but what the subject makes me feel. It should be a fun and interesting road to take. Maybe it will lead somewhere, maybe it won't. I know it will be enjoyable though.
Stay tuned. I'll not only post what I discover, but explain all that went into the underlying thought process.
Thought you might find this interesting.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
this has been a great thread-personally I think that an interesting subject and effective composition beats technical sophistication anyday-regarding rule of thirds and centering etc sometimes an image just can't be taken any other way (eg centred and it still can be successful)
since i bought my manual,mechanical pentax spotmatic with its crude stop down metering I think my photography has improved-it takes you back to basics and film makes you think a bit more before releasing the shutter ,as film costs...i am now trying to apply this to my digital shooting...a shot costs in digital too, although less apparent than film-actuations contributing to service/ repair as well as reduced resale value,reduced battery charge etc-hopefully tghis will slow me down a bit further whilst not losing the sharp reflexes required for a spontaneous snap shot of something happening before my eyes.
at the end of the day I please myself and if someone else likes it then thats a good thing.
what would be good for composition advice on rule of thirds/golden is a template grid which smugmugger(like the name?) critics can lay over an image to demonstrate composition theory.
Longitude: 145° 08'East
Canon 20d,EFS-60mm Macro,Canon 85mm/1.8. Pentax Spotmatic SP,Pentax Super Takumars 50/1.4 &135/3.5,Pentax Super-Multi-Coated Takumars 200/4 ,300/4,400/5.6,Sigma 600/8.
http://photos.mikelanestudios.com/
I never make any claim to being anything other than a hobbiest trying to improve my skills and develope my own style. That being said, I dont tend to ask for critique. I cant recall the last time I did, and I remember a lot.
Why not? Well I share my work with you all. I enjoy taking the photos, and I enjoy looking at them, and I hope that despite the imperfections, other people will enjoy looking at them and kind of share the experience of taking them. My hope is to make people feel like they have been to the place, or experience the subject in some personal way. Sometimes I come close, but rarely.
I dont ask for critique because I can see the imperfections but I still like them. Some times a shot breaks the rules and still works, sometimes it does not. I dont need someone to tell me the sky is a little too bright, I can see that, but it's the best I got that day, and I want to share it. I know when a shot comes close to my vision and when it doesn't. When I share it I know some will not like it. I hope some do, but either way, It's all good because I still had fun taking it and enjoyed looking at it.
I also think it's important to remember that the "rules" are rules for a reason.
A bunch of old guys smoking cigars in a closed room did not sit around and say "I think we need to make some rules for this photography thing before it gets out of hand" . The rules we all are refering to are hundreds of years ols and have applied to the masters of artwork for a Looong time. They are rules because followiing them tends to make things more appealing to the human brain.
Breaking the rules is fine, as long as you know it isn't always going to work for you and sometimes people may not find it as appealing. Maybe apealling isn't what you were after.
Other times it will work and the impact of the image will be stronger for the fact that it does not follow the rules. You should not just break the rules to be breaking the rules, nor should you consider something bad automaticall just because it breaks them.
I have said it before on this forum when I thought people were too hung up on winning challenges, or getting lots of comments, or upset over a rough critique.
You should be shooting for YOU. Did you achieve what you were trying to achieve. Does the image please you. Do you know what you could do to make it better.
That last question is the kicker though....
What if you dont. What if the image is close to what you wanted but not quite there. What if you don't know what could make it better. To me that is where the whipping post and feedback in the challenges etc come in.
"I like this image, but I know it is missing the mark in some way" This is the image to post asking for help.
I know this forum is full of VERY helpful people. I have seen helpful words of encouragment given to people that are struggling. I have seen people posting OOF (out of focus) after OOF shots and they get encouragment and suggestions for improvement. Exposure problems, unintentional motion blurring, camera shake, blown highlights, forward and back focusing issues confusing or distracting compositional elements are all common problems. I have these problems. I am sure Andy and Shay will agree that they have these problems. EVEN Harry may have these problems. The thing is, they have them a LOT less often than a person just starting out and they cull them themselves. They dont post them.
When people are starting out they post pictures with a lot more of these faults. I have not seen them get comments like "why are you posting this OOF crap". Dgrin is not that kind of place and if it were, I would not be here.
Instead they get suggestions on how to avoid the problem in the future. Maybe they dont know that using a tripod will give them sharper results at slow shutter speeds, many of them have no idea what the shutter speed is going to be when they press the shutter. Graduated nuetral what? polorizor? Whats that? We were all there and people starting out do not know that the bright glare off of the leaves is desaturating their colors and giving them blown highlights and they dont know that a polarizing filter will help.
To me, you have to learn these things. You have to learn the craft. You have to be a craftsman before you can be an artist. Picaso did not start out breaking the rules without bothering to learn how to mix paint to get the color he wanted.
Perhaps someone suggesting that a photo might be better if it followed the rule of thirds is also saying that it doesn't work the way it is.
I know this post is a bit rambling, but give me a break, I am tired and it is nearing 3 AM, but I think every needs to remember the Dgrin is one of the most helpful pleasant, welcoming, well run and friendly places on the internet where you can share and discuss photography.
I am glad to be here, and I am glad you are here.
_____________________________________________
Greaper, I love you! You have never annoyed me or hurt my feelings, not that I remember.
But you have given me a catch phrase to do a short "rant" on.
This phrase has annoyed me in the past, and I am seeing it here, and there, and here, etc.
I do want to say that when in doubt this appears to be what we "should" be doing. As that is what most of the people giving advice are doing.
However! If I, and you and you and you, were just shooting for myself, I would not be posting anywhere. Not even the most benevolent of sites: dGrin.
I am shooting for many reasons, at the top of which is myself. I am sharing for myself. However, I like interaction with people, and I like to show what I have been doing. I hope that it is appreciated, or liked, and as we, you, I, everyone, has said, nothing is going to be liked by everyone (except my best friend, smile, does), and sometimes I am going to want to respond to a "suggestion". Sometimes it is "thanks" and sometimes it is not.
Even here, the only rule we are abiding by is the agreement of shooting for ourselves................ That is becoming a "rule" in and of itself, as I see it, in my most humble opinion. I hate to see that become a "rule". Or a self proclamation. I don't believe it of anyone, cynic that I am!
I am shooting for myself! I am one of the most selfish people I know, I do most things for myself. But sometimes I would like to be able to say why something said has upset me. I don't know anyone here who wants to upset me. I don't want to upset anyone. Sometimes I want to communicate this.
I do feel the phrase "shoot for yourself and ignore all comments, or whatever", it makes me feel even worse, most of the time. It makes me think that the person who says that thinks they are a better person than I am, or something like that. Maybe I should be a better person. I want to be liked, I want my photographs, my children, my dogs, my trees, my birds, my whatever to be liked. I not only want them to be liked, I want them to be said to be wonderful, fantastic, cool, gorgeous, etc. Even with their faults.
I am sometimes a groveling, sniveling worm in this respect. "Please like me and my photographs", that could be in the cloud above me head.
When someone tells me I should be just shooting for myself, I usually do stop complaining, explaining, begging. But I wonder why I am such a terrible needy person that no one else feels as I do. Everyone else is shooting only for themselves, when I want MORE. I not only want to shoot only for myself, I want EVERYone to love the product.
What a worm I am!
ginger: Greaps, I do love you, really I do, I just used "you" or a sentence in your post. I am sorry. I saw it as an opportunity, please, it is not you...
(The early bird gets the worm. Cloudy, but clearing this afternoon.)
You make a very good point here Ginger and you are of course correct.
We are all seeking affermation that our work is of value. That it is appealing. That other people enjoy looking at it and respect the work or emotion or thought that went into creating it.
By saying that you should be shooting for you. All I am saying is that praise from the fine folks here at Dgrin makes you feel good, and confirms that what you are doing is appealing not just to yourself but to others as well, but it should not be the only reason (or the most important) that you shoot. IMHO
I think you should be taking photos that make you happy, both taking them and looking at them later.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
The point behind "shooting for you" is that you drive your creativity, the work you produce satisfies you, and you are willing to let the work stand on it's own merits confident that it does what you set out for it to do. It has nothing to do with how or where you post or display or sell your work. The point is in how it is created.
The opposite extreme of this would be what we see a lot of in forums. People shooting and producing work that *others* say they need to, a bland and uninteresting mix of work driven by the group mind "committee". The person is constantly in artistic turmoil trying to please the shifting fads and whims of the group mind. The frustration mounts as the person tries to figure out "what people like". Burn out is sure to follow as this path offers no personal satisfaction. Only when you retake control of the artistic reigns will the satisfaction come back.
Look through time at the number of artists that did great work despite the fact that their contemporaries didn't get it yet. If the artist let the group think drive the work produced, the artist would have disappeared into the sea of sameness that was surrounding the artist at the time.
And therein lies another point. How many truly great artists were recognized as such at the time they were producing their work? Some were, and some were not. But they did not let that affect their work or vision
So as the song says, you can't please everyone so you have to please yourself. And you do that by "shooting for you".
"Failure is feedback. And feedback is the breakfast of champions." - fortune cookie
When I was first starting out, I shot pictures and said to myself "Wow those are great!" Now I look back on those and say to myself "you should have done this and this and this and it would have been much better." Pleasing yourself is one thing, creating great art is another IMHO.
I see where you're coming from here. I just think that there is a lot more learning the basics that goes on in forums like these (and I'm certainly not past the basics myself) than mindless photographer groupthink.
How many Bob Ross-esque happy trees and mountains did that artist paint right on one of the thirds lines of the canvas before he broke the rules? How many photographs did you snap before you took the series of the moon rising above seattle (NICE btw!)? That shot took creativity and a vision and a certain willingness to not be bound by certain traditional photography rules. Maybe you're a natural and didn't have to learn the trade, I don't know. So far I've snapped thousands of pictures and I'm still working on understanding the "rules" and doing so by following the suggestions of others who are well versed in them. Surely that doesn't make me a mindless sheep photographer right?
How many truly great artists were truly great the first day they picked up a brush? Did Picasso ever paint a picture to please someone else in order to learn? I wonder what Ansel Adam's first picture looked like? How about Ansel's 100th or 1000th picture?
http://photos.mikelanestudios.com/
{edited to add and clarify}And by this I am not talking about getting inspiration from others, that is a different thing entirely. Inspiration is a seed that one takes and then cultivates with their own creativity and efforts. Inspiration is what Sherlock Holmes got from talking to Watson, Watson gave Holmes a seed, and it was Holmes that recognized it's significance to his task and then worked his magic on it. I view inspiration as a valuable thing in any artists life and is one of the valuable aspects of forums and clubs and general association with others.
My point is that once the basics are learned, a weening should take place between the "teacher" and the student so that the student can stand on their own artistic feet. As it is, we have a generation of professional students that will never mature if they don't get "off the bottle" if you know what I mean.
Hehehe a side note:
I can't help but be reminded of a Simpson's episode when the teachers go on strike and little Lisa Simpson freaks out at home:
Lisa: i]panting[/i Grade me...look at me...evaluate and rank me! Oh, I'm
good, good, good, and oh so smart! Grade me!
i]Marge scribbles an A on a piece of paper[/i
i]Lisa walks off, muttering crazily and sighing[/i
"Failure is feedback. And feedback is the breakfast of champions." - fortune cookie
I was on the road you mention, the road to burnout through frustration. I am not there at the moment, and I don't think I would burn out, this is what I do more than it might be to some. This is what I have done since I was a child, it is a way of coping with not being able to hear and still be "in" the world, I think.
It is the only thing, except graduate college at the top of my class, it is the only thing in my life that I have done well (such as I do). Everything else has been a total bust.
So I am coming from a different place than some others here, and I think we all, as individuals are coming from "a different place".
I see you wanting to learn the rules, Mike. I know the rules, have known them for many years. Not only did I get into photography seriously in 1970, my husband for many years was a commercial artist who taught at the college level. I was an art major for awhile. I kind of "grew up" knowing the rules. I knew them before I knew they had names, I don't know how that was, but I have a clear memory of the fascination with names for something I knew. Then I became interested in the photography of the people who were not following the rules. I went to bed surrounded with art/photography books, that was my life for a number of years.
I did get away from that, always had a good camera and always took photos, but my strong interests were elsewhere for awhile.
I came back strong with a heavy desire to get into digital. I was fascinated with digital, my husband said it wouldn't fly, I said it would and proceeded to do all I could to get into it in a small way. I bought a Canon Elph. I lived with that and its replacement for some years,. Then the Rebel D300 came out. I was ready, tired of lag time. I found smugmug and found here. But I already have a strong amateur photography background.
So, our goals might be different. What I have been learning is the digital photoshop way to do things. I went with the rule of thirds naturally most of the time, but I have messed up in other areas. Now the rule of thirds is an issue again as I use a center pt with al servo and a Canon 20D which puts my subject in the center. I am used to composing in the camera and working up full frame, so I am learning a bit, how much I have to move my subject over to get it out of the middle and still like the photo myself.
But you mentioned something interesting that I went through. It was not an issue here, but I went through a "blur" period. I call it my oily phase. I look back now and do, as you say, think how could I have liked that. That was my experimentation. It was being done by others here, too, so it was not an issue.
I pick up on things I hear in passing. The happy tilt. No one told me about it. I "overheard" Rutt talking about Andy's happy tilt. I asked Rutt about it, I learned something useful. The haze: Andy and others noticed something "off", James Weggoner (sp) came to Charleston and mentioned the haze factor and my photography. Rutt told me how I might get rid of it. So I need and want to learn too, but not the things I already know.
How do others know what I know? I can't answer that. Some people seem to be able to teach me easier than others. But it sometimes takes the "others" to get my attention. Then between my attention being gotten, the trials and errors of correction or different things, I adapt what I have learned to my work, if it suits me.
I should stop now. 1) we all have different goals, 2) our histories are often different, 3) personally, my personality is not the best.........I am the worm I talked about in my previous post.
I have wanted to fit in my entire life, somewhere. I know I am guilty of trying to copy the style, the techniques of others here, when my abilities, equipment, etc are more suited for a slightly different style. I get frustrated, shouldn't, but I do. I am passionate about the things in which I am interested. I don't do them as a sometime thing, I immerse myself. I make no money at this at all, yet I liken it to owning a business. I never get a break from photography. That is good and it is bad. It is something I can always count on to make me feel good, and it is something that can cause great frustration.
Those are bits of information. I don't know if anyone wants to know it, all this stuff. It might explain how I get hurt when someone tells me something I know and have known most of my life, but there is no way the people here can know what I do know.
I am old now. A man at a wildlife place where I called about eagles, just a bit ago, he "knows" me, he kept saying, "but make sure you bring someone with you". Now that is worth a rant. I have no one to take. My husband is working through the weekend, except for a few hours on Sunday. So, unless I stay home for two weeks, I go by myself. That hurt, what that man said. Last time I will accept a ride at that place. Yet, I do try to adapt what I do to changing circumstances. I will go there, but I will do it a bit differently.
That weighes on me, though. He assumes I am too old to do this without someone with me. For "my safety", he said. (My husband sleeps in the van when he is with me). So, I might then over react when someone says "that could have been a nice photograph. Too bad the sky/feathers/whatever, is blown".
It can be accumulative. And I personally do have to learn to deal with the limitations of arthritis and age, but I don't care about blown areas much Maybe I am a better photographer since if I can, I no longer blow areas, but I don't care if a photo is grainy, usually. Maybe I am better for watching out for that, too.
I would not have burned out, don't know what I would have done, this is what I do, but my frustration level sure would have built. Maybe I would have wanted to kick the dog and yell at my husband.
And on the computer is where my "friends", interaction with people takes place, as I can't do it well in person. Unless I am directly facing a person, who talks very clearly, the surroundings are quiet, I can't hear. I think that is one reason I like the birds, we don't talk much. It is also why it is difficult for me to photograph people (everyone assumes that because I can talk, I can hear). Then I do like someone with me. Or I would.
ginger (sorry this was so long and personal. Different stories, different needs, different expectations in a forum.)
http://photos.mikelanestudios.com/
I guess just that you learned what you know about art. You didn't always know it. So at some point (pre-camera days, art major days, film camera days, digital camera days - whenever) you learned by following some set guidelines. You got approving smiles, A grades, pats on the back, whatever from someone somewhere when you did well (and vice versa when you didn't do so well). You were given assignments, told what to shoot or paint or draw or whatever to a certain extent. You were limited to the composition or the subject matter or techniques or colors or whatever. You did these things not because you weren't creative, but because you were learning.
My whole point here is not that people should follow the crowd. I most definitely agree that a personal style is the most important thing any artist (photographers, painters, sketchers, musicians, etc) can have. The fact of the matter is that I very much like finding things in art that many others do not understand or appreciate. That issue is wholly separate from the learning process however and that is what my comments have focused on.
http://photos.mikelanestudios.com/