Are we too Rigid?

[Khaos]

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.

[rutt]

I think this is a great flame and mostly I agree with you. But look at it this way. We get a lot of people at dgrin who are struggling to make digital photography work, to learn the rules. And dgrin is great "on ramp" for digital phogotraphy.

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.)

[Shay Stephens]

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.

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?

[rutt]

I like what Shay said better than I like what I said.

[Andy]

good thread.

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 :lol3 sure, it's important to have sharpness for details - and in some photos, that's critically important - but in many photos, many great photos, sharpness doesn't matter a lick.

[Harryb]

Good post K. I have found photography to be an individual expression. Being a hobbyist the only person I shoot for is myself. I enjoy hearing what others have to say about my shots but I'm rarely affected by their critiques.

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.

[Mike Lane]

measurebation should be done back behind closed doors where it belongs. :lol3 That's totally going in the Andy quote file.

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 :dunno

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.

[Mike Lane]

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.
That's what I'm talking about. Limits! If you go to the zoo with a long a$$ lens you have automatically limited what you can do. If you want good shots, you'd better get creative.

[zigzag]

I like what Shay said better than I like what I said. Heh, I like what you said better than what Shay said :D

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."

[zigzag]

:lol3 That's totally going in the Andy quote file.
I think this goes in there too:

embrace the noise, become one with the noise. bathe in it's simple noisiness! sharp? sharp?

:encore

[DavidTO]

Great thread, great discussion.

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....

[Mike Lane]

Great thread, great discussion.

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....
Could it be that the whipping post is too technically oriented not to mention the fact that it is named the whipping post? I mean, maybe people are simply making it live up to its name and taking the approach that it's about finding things that are wrong with the pics.

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.

[Harryb]

That's what I'm talking about. Limits! If you go to the zoo with a long a$$ lens you have automatically limited what you can do. If you want good shots, you'd better get creative.

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.

[ginger_55]

I agree with you, Khaos! (did you change your name back, or am I confused?)

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!

[USAIR]

I started out shooting people,family,friends but soon found that this just didn't do it for me.
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 :D
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.:clap

Thanks
Fred

[ginger_55]

Great thread, great discussion.

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....
David, I see the whipping post as a means, a tool for me, if I were to use it, to solve a problem. I think it has moved away from that.

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.)

[Mike Lane]

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.
In this instance, the long lens at the zoo would be a self-imposed limitation since you could choose a lens that would be wider and would allow you to shoot more "classic" zoo shots. I definitely agree with you and I think you took me the wrong way. There is (was?) a famous french photographer (and I can't recall who it is of course!) who never used anything other than a 24-135mm lens. Ever. That was a self-imposed limitation and I guarantee you it forced him to get creative in lots of situations. What's that old school Russian camera that people use to take some tremendous shots? It's got its own quirks and limitations and it forces you to think in creative ways. You can't take shots in the same situations as other cameras and get good results, you just can't. but if you're creative enough, you can get some of the greatest shots ever.

So like you said, it's got little to do with the equipment. And I agree.

[Khaos]

I was hoping for this.

Great input.:thumb

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.

[Harryb]

I was hoping for this.

Great input.:thumb

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 (http://luminous-landscape.com/columns/aesthetics9.shtml) interesting.

[gtc]

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.




Thought you might find this (http://luminous-landscape.com/columns/aesthetics9.shtml) interesting.

[Mike Lane]

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.
Now that's rigid!

[GREAPER]

A very interesting thread. You have all been busy while I was at (Harry cover your eyes!) work.

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.

[ginger_55]

You should be shooting for YOU.
_____________________________________________

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.)

[GREAPER]

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.


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.

[pathfinder]

A very interesting thread. You have all been busy while I was at (Harry cover your eyes!) work.

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.
Great Post Brian!!:agree:agree

[Shay Stephens]

I think maybe we are dissecting the terms too much. When Davinci made a painting, statue, drawing, or what have you, don't you think he primarily did so in a way that satisfied his own personal aesthetics. Only when he was satisfied did he then deliver the piece.

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".

You should be shooting for YOU.
_____________________________________________

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.

[Mike Lane]

I think maybe we are dissecting the terms too much. When Davinci made a painting, statue, drawing, or what have you, don't you think he primarily did so in a way that satisfied his own personal aesthetics. Only when he was satisfied did he then deliver the piece.
Surely I don't have to live up to Davinci do I? Assuming Davinci had to learn how to paint and draw at some point (he could have been a natural for all I know) I guarantee you he had a tutor or a mentor explain the rule of thirds and the golden mean and why images that utilize them look better. Davinci probably even drew some early pictures or painted some early paintings that his tutor or mentor asked him to draw or paint. That wasn't committee thinking, that was learning. I'm not saying the former doesn't happen these days in dgrin, but I think people do the latter more often than not. I guess what I'm trying to say is that lots of people are just trying to learn what makes art and photographs good and submitting their results to be critiqued.

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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
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?

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".
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?

[Shay Stephens]

Once the basics of photography are known, where do you think the driving force of creativity should come from? The artist or other people?

{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: [panting] Grade me...look at me...evaluate and rank me! Oh, I'm
good, good, good, and oh so smart! Grade me!
[Marge scribbles an A on a piece of paper]
[Lisa walks off, muttering crazily and sighing]

Surely I don't have to live up to Davinci do I? Assuming Davinci had to learn how to paint and draw at some point (he could have been a natural for all I know) I guarantee you he had a tutor or a mentor explain the rule of thirds and the golden mean and why images that utilize them look better. Davinci probably even drew some early pictures or painted some early paintings that his tutor or mentor asked him to draw or paint. That wasn't committee thinking, that was learning. I'm not saying the former doesn't happen these days in dgrin, but I think people do the latter more often than not. I guess what I'm trying to say is that lots of people are just trying to learn what makes art and photographs good and submitting their results to be critiqued.


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?

[ginger_55]

Right on, Shay, I agree with whatever you said,:D .

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.:1drink No, I don't drink for relief, it doesn't give me any, unfortunately. The way I get away from the frustration of photography is to go out and shoot. It is a circle. And it works, til the next time.

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.)

[Mike Lane]

Once the basics of photography are known exactly...

[Mike Lane]

Right on, Shay, I agree with whatever you said,:D .

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.:1drink No, I don't drink for relief, it doesn't give me any, unfortunately. The way I get away from the frustration of photography is to go out and shoot. It is a circle. And it works, til the next time.

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.)
I'm not sure how to respond to that :huh

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.

[ginger_55]

Mike, you have some fine photographs on your site. What would you like to see happen at dGrin?

ginger

[Mike Lane]

Mike, you have some fine photographs on your site. What would you like to see happen at dGrin?

ginger
Thanks Ginger...

Really, I don't think I have any expectations of what to happen at dgrin. I think it's a fine place, I'm mostly just conversing...

That said I did make a suggestion in this very thread (http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=178690&postcount=12). My point is not to change things, just add new things maybe :D I like how things are now, but I also like trying new things. It may or may not be a good idea, I was just throwing it out there. Think of it as a compliment to what we have rather than a replacement for any particular thing. That's all.

[Angelo]

Wow K, thanks for starting this thread. I share your frustration with the tossing of terms like "rule of thirds", "sharpen this, sharpen that", "PS", "curves" "crop", "too much crop"... it's all a bunch of cr*p! :D

I'm happy to read some of the other responses too (although I find some are hypocritical)

I say... love your camera, love your craft, have fun and express yourself!
I enjoy visiting sites like www.deviantart.com (http://www.deviantart.com) where the younger, edgier crowd haven't been "conditioned" to the "rules"

[Angelo]

I think maybe we are dissecting the terms too much. When Davinci made a painting, statue, drawing, or what have you, don't you think he primarily did so in a way that satisfied his own personal aesthetics. Only when he was satisfied did he then deliver the piece.

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".
Bravo Shay, very well put. In fact DaVinci and Michaelangelo were considered renegades, often condemned by the church for the content and subjects of their work. Both artisits developed styles of trickery to fool the censoring priests.

[DavidTO]

I think maybe we are dissecting the terms too much. When Davinci made a painting, statue, drawing, or what have you, don't you think he primarily did so in a way that satisfied his own personal aesthetics. Only when he was satisfied did he then deliver the piece.

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".

Shay, your viewpoint is very much like what you would find in an Ayn Rand novel. Very appealing, and also very true for artistic expression. I do want to add that not all photography is art.

I am no photography expert, but I work in a field that is very much driven by "committee". I edit movie marketing. You should hear some of the hair-brained ideas that I have to try or constraints that are put on the work that I do. These are almost always driven by a real or perceived marketing force. Sometimes they're just plain old bad creative ideas.

I also get an immense amount of constructive, positive feedback that makes what I do better.

Photography isn't always art, in fact it's usually commerce, just like the trailers and TV spots that I cut.

The thing that I've learned through years of doing this work is to find my stylistic voice in spite of the fact that I get all this feedback that alternates between useful and stupid. I do think that there is value in getting critiqued by pros, amateurs and the un-washed masses *IF* you can avoid what you described so well here:

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.

I think that what you're really saying is that relying on others to determine your artistic style is a dead end, and I agree with that completely. If you can manage to avoid that, however, through strength of character and conviction in yourself, then critique can be useful from any source, no matter how advanced in the field.

[ginger_55]

I'm not sure how to respond to that :huh

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.
Mike, have you thought of attending workshops somewhere, would that be an option for you?

I attended two while living in Indiana, they were held in Wisconsin. I loved them, a few things I learned still are with me. I hate to say "a few" for fear of scaring you, but that was me. The workshops were very valuable. They were held by well known photographers of the time: the 70s. I think that would be an atmosphere you would thrive in.

Others here have attended workshops and have had very good things to say.
You can choose the one (s) that you think would benefit you. I can't afford it, or I would go to one.

Plus, the more you can be around these "guys", say at their get togethers, the more you could learn almost by osmosis. I would love to do that myself, too.

Another thing is to "listen" in here. You don't need to have an assignment to "learn". However, if you want an assignment, what could be better than the challenge here. I have learned a lot by "listening" to what others write, then following up something that interests me.

I was thinking of all of these things. I thought of them in relation to your response to me. They are all good options. I think any of them would be a valuable learning experience. You may already take advantage of this group, here. dGrin has the best price tag, but any knowledge is priceless.

If you can afford it, the seminar/workshop thing is valuable in many ways you mentioned and seem to be interested in. It would be worth looking into. We belong here and enjoy each other, but that does not mean we cannot take advantage of so many opportunities that are out there, according to our individual needs and desires.

Bless,

ginger

[ginger_55]

[QUOTE=DavidTO] I do want to add that not all photography is art.

QUOTE]


I can see, David, how your work environment could make for some cynicism. But, ahhhhh, David, who is to decide what is art.

Maya Angelou, the poet, she puts her poetry on things at Hallmark. She was roundly criticised for doing this as everyone knows that Hallmark is not truly "art" in any sense. She disagrees. Does she not have a whatever prize, I can't spell anything today.

I have seen ads, print and TV, that I thought were brilliant. Because something is commercial does not "define" whether or not it is art. Some of those old masters were businessmen, you know.

ginger

[Mike Lane]

Mike, have you thought of attending workshops somewhere, would that be an option for you?

I attended two while living in Indiana, they were held in Wisconsin. I loved them, a few things I learned still are with me. I hate to say "a few" for fear of scaring you, but that was me. The workshops were very valuable. They were held by well known photographers of the time: the 70s. I think that would be an atmosphere you would thrive in.

Others here have attended workshops and have had very good things to say.
You can choose the one (s) that you think would benefit you. I can't afford it, or I would go to one.

Plus, the more you can be around these "guys", say at their get togethers, the more you could learn almost by osmosis. I would love to do that myself, too.

Another thing is to "listen" in here. You don't need to have an assignment to "learn". However, if you want an assignment, what could be better than the challenge here. I have learned a lot by "listening" to what others write, then following up something that interests me.

I was thinking of all of these things. I thought of them in relation to your response to me. They are all good options. I think any of them would be a valuable learning experience. You may already take advantage of this group, here. dGrin has the best price tag, but any knowledge is priceless.

If you can afford it, the seminar/workshop thing is valuable in many ways you mentioned and seem to be interested in. It would be worth looking into. We belong here and enjoy each other, but that does not mean we cannot take advantage of so many opportunities that are out there, according to our individual needs and desires.

Bless,

ginger
Workshops and classes are just my speed I think :) If I had the money I'd probably go back and get a BFA in photography and / or digital media or something.

Why, oh why did I major in math? :dunno

[USAIR]

Mike I like your idea of a "photo assignments room / topic"
I think this would be kinda fun :D

Thanks
Fred

[gtc]

Now that's rigid!
no,that was a joke,"smugmugger critics etc"

[Mike Lane]

no,that was a joke,"smugmugger critics etc"
I know, it was funny :lol3

[JMichael]

I stumbled across this thread while searching for some information about cropping... I can't resist posting this link:

http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html

Its quite entertaining.

[Jeffro]

I take the feedback I get here, with a grain of salt. The reason being, I don't know any of you, nor you me. I expect the C&C I give to be taken the same way. It's more my opinion, my take, or my style reflecting on what you did, and giving a tip on what I would do. One can try it, or ignore it.

I often check out the photo's of those that C&C my stuff, and if they shoot the same subject matter, and do it well, or even better, then I may pay a bit more attention to what they recommended. If I see nothing that leads me to beleive the reviewer knows his f-stop from his ISO, I just move on.

All the talk about cropping, saturation, curves, and such usually has no effect on me. My "style" usually invlolves trying to get the crop when I take the picture....that's why the lens zooms in and out. I can also back up, or move up. I'm not totally against PS but I started with film, and don't enjoy spending a ton of time at the computer. I try...that's try...to get it right in camera, but if I miss, I will attempt a PS repair. I get turned off on photo's that look too sharp...almost fake. The colors should look like they looked to your eye.

I have used the whipping post, once, and have given C&C. I noted the info I got, but that doesn't mean I would have changed a thing I did with the shot. It did make me think, or open my mind a bit more. That is always good.

In the end I shoot for me, always have, always will. If I don't like the picture it's wrong. If someone else likes it, and I don't, the picture is still wrong...to me anyway.

Sometimes I laugh at the C&C given, too much clutter in the background, shadow is wrong...whatever. Sometimes when we shoot, we have no choice other than deal with the conditions we were presented with. It's not like the photographer has total control of a scene.....unless it's in the studio.

Now go out and shoot...for yourself. :D

[Head in the Clouds]

Whilst I haven't read this whole thread, just snippets, I just wanted to add my little take on the C&C/whipping etc etc ....

I've used the whipping post once, and probably won't bother again .. .and this is why. I really liked the image I posted, but wanted to see if anyone else did ... I could see that it wasn't everybodys taste .. anyway, I got "blown out bits", "not cropped right" etc etc ...

I had an exhibition just last week. The damn shot sold out of its editions (admittedly only 5 in an edition, but none-the-less). I realised that the people who might buy my shots generally know NOTHING about photography ... they don't care if there is a glary white tree, if they "feel like they've been there" or as one person thought "I feel drawn into thephotograph" others were saying "the difference between the light and the dark makes the dark seem alive and the white seem dead, whereas that isn't what it actually is - let me buy one!".......

So, as I am my own worst critic, I shall stick with that. I do like hearing what others think of my shots and I learn a hell of a lot that way, but always take it with a grain of salt. Hell, I made $500 from a single shot that no-one liked in the whipping post. Says it all me thinks :D

if anyone cares, here is the shot:
http://headintheclouds.smugmug.com/photos/76148613-M.jpg

[gtc]

I'm with you-the whipping post is badly named and reviews/critiques need to be confined to those who are respected critics who can also provide constructive criticism- a few photos that I have submitted have been well and truly bagged in there but sell well-I have now sold one photo 8 times for $350AUD, which was roundly attacked in there.What does that say?

I must say that if I based my decisions on the whipping post I would not have sold anything.

How about reanaming it Gallery Critique and get some people in there who have a broad appreciation of different types of photography and the tact and language skills to critique constructively.

Appoint them as to their likes and expertise so that
a sports photographer can review sports shots,an art photographer can review abstracts etc,a landscape photogrepher,portrait specialist,nature etc.

Allow all appointed reviewers to have their say outside their area of interest as we don't want to limit their input,and just because someone is a portrait photographer does not mean that thay cant have something constructive to say on a landscape.


Limit the submissions to one a month so that the reviewers are not swamped and have some time to give considered replies and people are restricted to submitting their best photo for the month.

Over to you.

Greg

[claudermilk]

IIRC, there's a website that does exactly what you propose. You submit the shot, the expert panel writes up a critique of the shot & sends it to you. I cannot remember the name of the place though.

In any open photo critique fora, I always take the advice with a grain of salt & check out the shots from the more coherent posters. I haven't used the Whipping Post (yet), but usedto use the FM critique forum a lot (excellent users back then--mostly still there, but more chaff now), and photosig for a while (that got silly fast).

The satire site posted earlier is painfully accurate, funny as it is.

BTW, I think that shot is great. So there's a tiny bit of stump blown out, big deal.

[wxwax]

In any open photo critique fora, I always take the advice with a grain of salt & check out the shots from the more coherent posters.
Yeah, I think that's the point.

Just because someone wrote it, doesn't mean it's true. I'd say if you put a shot in Whipping Post and got even one idea that you found helpful, your experience was a success.

I don't think the answer is to change the people who submit the feedback. I think the answer is to be clear about what you're hoping to get out of the submitting a shot. And to have some thick skin to let the bad advice bounce off of you.

[thebigsky]

I've learnt a lot from posting in the whipping post, but I can also filter out the valid criticism from the pedantic nonsense that is sometimes posted.

I think it's a useful resource for people like myself who are only a few months into taking their photography seriously, however I would question the merit of more experienced photographers posting, we all look for validation but I think if you're honest with yourself you know when a shot is good or not if you've been at it for a while.

The point made earlier about pixel peeping and obsession with sharpness and low noise made me think about a photograph I saw yesterday at a Costa Coffee. I first viewed it from across the room and thought, wow, that's sharp, is it a photograph or a computer generated image, it was so perfect.

When I saw the image close up however it was clearly a photograph, it was a bit noisy in places and not overly sharp on close inspection. But from the distance the pictures would usually be viewed it was perfect.

I think it's too easy to get carried away with technical details when we sit so close to our monitors and zoom around our images obsessing over every little imperfection.

[Nikolai]

...
I've used the whipping post once, and probably won't bother again .. .and this is why. I really liked the image I posted, but wanted to see if anyone else did ... I could see that it wasn't everybodys taste .. anyway, I got "blown out bits", "not cropped right" etc etc ...

I had an exhibition just last week. The damn shot sold out of its editions (admittedly only 5 in an edition, but none-the-less). I realised that the people who might buy my shots generally know NOTHING about photography ...
....


Congrats on the selling (and a very nice shot BTW). :thumb

However, I think you're mixing two things. Whipping Post is not about a commercial success. It's about people learning the ropes and trying to be at least common rules compliant. Photography - as an art - is extremely subjective and as such appeals differently to different people. In WP we do "pixel peeping" and observing such things as "blowouts" and "rules of third" simply because for many novice photographers technical aspects of their work are still the goals to master.

And this is what WP is for. I don't care if Mr. Adams or Monsieur Cartier-Besson post there - they would get the same whipping (and the famous flcker experiment with HCB photo of bicyclist shows just that).

Now, does it have anything to do with the picture's or photographer's commercial success? None at all.

WP's primary idea is that one may need to learn the rules first before starting breaking them. Geniuses break them from the start. The rest of us learn first and break away later..

Just MHO.

[Khaos]

If you relate commercial success to the quality of work, you would have a lot of explaining to do when it comes to the commercial success of many movies, tv shows, songs, and books. What sells and what is considered actually good are two very different things.

[DavidTO]

All critique is valid and useful. All of it.

Here's the value of critique, and why the Whipping Post has value:

1) As a photographer, one great way to get better is to study other photographs. Ones that you like, and ones that you don't. As Shay said, inspiration. Sometimes it inspires you through positive example, and other times, it will inspire you by showing you what you do not want to shoot.

2) The act of critiquing sharpens your eye. Hopefully not just your pixel-peeping eye, but also your creative, compositional, subject oriented eye. Yeah, we get a lot of pixel peepers everywhere online. Both the internet and digital photography are a filter that leave us with the most technologically minded. The gift of photography is that it is an opportunity to stretch the creative side, while enjoying the tinkering of the technical side.

3) Any critique offers something to learn from. Some critiques you'll go, "Yeah, that's a great idea I want to incorporate into my photographical vision." Other critiques you will respond with, "No way, that is not the kind of photographer I want to be." Anything in between, it's your job to figure out which side of the fence that comment is on. If you're not sure how you feel about a critique you've received, take the time to get clear, there's value in that.

I would love to have the Whipping Post be a much less pixel-peeping experience, to increase the quality of the crit, to broaden the discussions to how the images make you feel, what the subject says to you, and WHY. Any ideas on how to improve the WP are welcome. PM me, or start a thread...or....maybe just start being the change that you want to see in the WP.

[DavidTO]

WP's primary idea is that one may need to learn the rules first before starting breaking them. Geniuses break them from the start. The rest of us learn first and break away later..

Just MHO.


I disagree. The WP's primary idea is to get away from pixel peeping and to critique an image as a photographic WHOLE. No where does the WP encourage a stick-to-the-rules approach, it's just that so many of our members (at least those on the WP) are comfortable with the rules.

[DavidTO]

If you relate commercial success to the quality of work, you would have a lot of explaining to do when it comes to the commercial success of many movies, tv shows, songs, and books. What sells and what is considered actually good are two very different things.


That's a non-sequitur, because you're using the word "good" in two different ways, with two different meanings. One meaning of good is aesthetically challenging, pleasing, artistically realized, or something along those lines. The other meaning of "good" is commercial success. Both are good. Different goods, but good nonetheless. Success is good. Trust me, I've worked on plenty of "bad" movies that do well in the box office. That's good, and it's a good movie for performing well. It just has a different set of criteria than the ones that I use for what I like to view.

[wxwax]

I agree with the spirit of your post, David, if not the letter.

[DavidTO]

I agree with the spirit of your post, David, if not the letter.


It's a lot of letters, that's for sure! :D

[Forehead]

So as not to appear loquacious, here's my condensed version:

"Hey, I just gotta be ME!"

:nod

[Zanotti]

Funny how the internet works. I was reading a thread here on Dgrin, that directed me to another site, where I was reading about sites with good advice. I read several, and one directed me to a link that was supposed to be required reading.

That link came back here to this older, but wiser thread. Three degrees of separation?

There's a lot of great advice on this site. I wonder how we index it so we can all continue to learn?

Z

[wxwax]

Funny how the internet works. I was reading a thread here on Dgrin, that directed me to another site, where I was reading about sites with good advice. I read several, and one directed me to a link that was supposed to be required reading.

That link came back here to this older, but wiser thread. Three degrees of separation?

There's a lot of great advice on this site. I wonder how we index it so we can all continue to learn?

Z
I guess that means we've arrived? :lol3

[Ashleighsmommy06]

My response should be taken with a grain of salt as I have only been reading the posts on this board for just over a couple months (and posting for just a week or so). But, being "new" to photography (as an art form anyway) I have to say that I agree with this completely. There have been many times that I have read critiques in the whipping section that made absolutely no sense. If you view photography as a true art form, then who are you to determine if the photographer requesting critiques should move his subject a little to the left (this is simply the last critique that stuck out in my head). :dunno

I my VERY HUMBLE opinion, shouldn't the artist be responsible for those choices and creations? We are here simply to view it, study it, and learn from it. No?

Art is incredibly subjective. That's all. I think it may be more in the delivery of the critiques, rather than the idea of critiques themselves. Just two cents from VERY fresh eyes!!

[ginger_55]

Khaos!!!! Right on! A whole wonderful thread that in which I agree with your post, Khaos, immediately.

I am sorry I missed this discussion.

Now I am noticing that everyone appears to agree with whatever you said, no counting pixels, stand back, etc..............

I am glad that they do, agree that is.
Now if at least the words, "Art is subjective" could be added to all critiques good and bad with total recognition that one's opinion is only one's opinion, well, that would be cool, IMO.

You all rock!!

ginger (of course that is just my opinion, of course, smile.)

[KvPhoto]

I am so glad to see this thread! I recently went to a lecture of Tony Sweet's at the New York City Sierra Club and realized that it IS ok to have things out of focus. It can work!
My college degree, when I get to finish it, will be in photography. Before I left school a few years ago to work full time my photography professor told me that technically my printing and exposure is excellent but my creativity is lacking. (Mind you this was when I was still doing 35mm black and white, when I got my DSLR the whole world changed for me.) Before that I was taught that rules of third and sharp focusing was the basis of an excellent photograph. NOT SO!! I want to go out of the box, but have been afraid to based on what I was told in the past. Now I am just trying to find my 'vision', what it is that is my realm of photography. Trial and error can be a tedious thing but you wind up making what you think are mistakes but can turn out to be beautiful images.
Now if my college only had a lighting class lol!

[rorytate]

Yes indeed, a refreshing post and thread. I've fled from several foto forums for these very reasons.

For myself, art is simply the quality of communication. Take your child's first crayon scrawls..tell me that's not a quality communication! And..truth be known, for the same reason, Ansel Adams has always left me chilled emotionally. I've rarely seen someone wax enthusiastic over the sharpness of an image or drool over the lack of chrominence noise.

I see so many emotionally expressive images on this site that I keep coming back for the pleasure. You just never know when anyone is just going to blow you away with their art. It just shouts, or murmmers, or chuckles or whispers or does something that is just such a unique communication.

So that's my exposition on the matter and I'm so pleased I was provoked into commenting.

Rory Tate
Canadian, Okla.