| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/15/2009 12:02:12 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Beauty & art are in the eye of the beholder. Personally I hate being told that I'm a Philistine just because I don't hold the same high opinion of some photographer that I'm just not into his work.
If I don't like it, I don't like it.......period. |
its alright not to like something, but its very bad to tell how he could 'improve' his art by following your advice.
If you read the link others provided most of the comments were about how they could improve their work.
Its like me telling vinci how he should have painted and composed monalisa. |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 12:43:56 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Beauty & art are in the eye of the beholder. Personally I hate being told that I'm a Philistine just because I don't hold the same high opinion of some photographer that I'm just not into his work.
If I don't like it, I don't like it.......period. |
its alright not to like something, but its very bad to tell how he could 'improve' his art by following your advice.
If you read the link others provided most of the comments were about how they could improve their work.
Its like me telling vinci how he should have painted and composed monalisa. |
where there is art, there will always be art critics. What makes the famous people so untouchable? if someone has spent an equal amount of time in the same craft as the artist why cant they offer critcisms? |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 12:50:31 AM · #28 |
Thanks  Yo_Spiff and geoffb -- that's the link I was thinking of. Very funny stuff. |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 12:57:43 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by smardaz:
Originally posted by zxaar:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Beauty & art are in the eye of the beholder. Personally I hate being told that I'm a Philistine just because I don't hold the same high opinion of some photographer that I'm just not into his work.
If I don't like it, I don't like it.......period. |
its alright not to like something, but its very bad to tell how he could 'improve' his art by following your advice.
If you read the link others provided most of the comments were about how they could improve their work.
Its like me telling vinci how he should have painted and composed monalisa. |
where there is art, there will always be art critics. What makes the famous people so untouchable? if someone has spent an equal amount of time in the same craft as the artist why cant they offer critcisms? |
famous people are not untouchable, for example criticize paris hilton as much as you like.
If you have said masters of their art rather than famous, then there might be some argument.
For this example telling Henri that he can not shot a sharp photo, tells more about commenter than about HCB.
Because even thinking that an expert like him could not get photo sharp is foolishness, brood over it. |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 01:05:11 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
For this example telling Henri that he can not shot a sharp photo, tells more about commenter than about HCB.
Because even thinking that an expert like him could not get photo sharp is foolishness, brood over it. |
Let's not forget this is a very low res version of a scanned image. I doubt whoever uploaded this had access to the original negatives, so it's probably a copy of a copy of a copy so to speak. I would have thought there has been some image degradation along the way. Don't know how many people have seen the original, it doesn't look quite like the one posted on flickr, certainly the tones are much different in the original. And  zxaar I'm agreeing with you here, in case you thought otherwise! Thanks for posting - it's good to see stuff like this. It just highlights how you can't please all of the people all of the time. Personally I love this image. Tack sharp images are over rated anyway.
Message edited by author 2009-06-15 01:05:31. |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 01:07:16 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by salmiakki:
Tack sharp images are over rated anyway. |
Amen to that. :-) |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 01:07:25 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
Originally posted by smardaz:
Originally posted by zxaar:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Beauty & art are in the eye of the beholder. Personally I hate being told that I'm a Philistine just because I don't hold the same high opinion of some photographer that I'm just not into his work.
If I don't like it, I don't like it.......period. |
its alright not to like something, but its very bad to tell how he could 'improve' his art by following your advice.
If you read the link others provided most of the comments were about how they could improve their work.
Its like me telling vinci how he should have painted and composed monalisa. |
where there is art, there will always be art critics. What makes the famous people so untouchable? if someone has spent an equal amount of time in the same craft as the artist why cant they offer critcisms? |
famous people are not untouchable, for example criticize paris hilton as much as you like.
If you have said masters of their art rather than famous, then there might be some argument.
For this example telling Henri that he can not shot a sharp photo, tells more about commenter than about HCB.
Because even thinking that an expert like him could not get photo sharp is foolishness, brood over it. |
IMO, just because a "master" takes a picture does not make it infallible and it does not mean it can not be improved upon. they also can make mistakes. i do think that once someone reaches a certain status people just take for granted everything they do is great or genius.
Message edited by author 2009-06-15 01:09:00. |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 01:45:42 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I've always thought it an interesting question was whether Henri, given access to today's equipment, would have chosen for the image to be sharper if he could (not the biker of course)? In other words, was the softness a product of the equipment available at the time or did Henri choose to make it soft? Did he choose the Leica for it's image aesthetic or because it was compact?
I think it's unfair to the general public to pose a picture that is, what, at least 50 years old (not sure the exact date he took that one) as a modern picture shot with a digital camera. If this picture had been shot with a dSLR, chances are better than not a mistake WAS made in the shooting of the picture (in other words, given a random picture, it's more likely the person didn't know what they were doing rather than they purposely manipulated the shot to be soft).
I do like the picture quite a bit, but I sorta cluck at the "we're-so-awesome-cuz-we-identified-a-picture-and-they-are-cretins-because-they-didn't" crowd. |
I'm not sure the digital camera exists yet that would work with HCB's shooting style. |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 01:53:59 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by smardaz:
IMO, just because a "master" takes a picture does not make it infallible and it does not mean it can not be improved upon. they also can make mistakes. i do think that once someone reaches a certain status people just take for granted everything they do is great or genius. |
you have a very valid point (at least in my opinion you have).
But(t). (there is a small butt here).
I do not understand photography very much so can't say much about these masters, but i have studied painting for years and studied these great masters.
They created masterpieces because they did not compromise on anything, they had utmost level of dedication to what they did. And they had learning and understanding of their art to greatest level.
So scope for improvement is very little.
Coming back to HCB, if he thought it was good enough, i would rather respect it. Than to tell that dude you got it all wrong and buy a canon 5d m2 and you will do okey.
Personally i also do not like many Picasso paintings but i do not think he should improve upon anything in them. Its his art, for me i could like or dislike it.
Message edited by author 2009-06-15 01:54:40. |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 01:55:14 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by smardaz:
i do think that once someone reaches a certain status people just take for granted everything they do is great or genius. |
I've noticed this as well.. I'm trying to remember where I heard the saying or general rule that out of 100 photos, the average photographer may generally be very happy with just a few of them.. all the others are dismissed for technical, compositional, or other reasons (with respect to what the photographer is used to producing). That means that, even if someone is very aware and proficient with their camera, for every 10-15 great shots, there are 100-200 mediocre results.
And since I took awhile to respond, I'm one post late.. but in response to the painting thing, I think that's also somewhat different because painters sit and develop a masterpiece over time, whereas a photograph being taken is only the first step of the process for a photographer. So, there may be plenty of "outtakes" in the quest for the "perfect" image.
Message edited by author 2009-06-15 01:57:12.
|
|
|
|
06/15/2009 02:04:48 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I've always thought it an interesting question was whether Henri, given access to today's equipment, would have chosen for the image to be sharper if he could (not the biker of course)? In other words, was the softness a product of the equipment available at the time or did Henri choose to make it soft? Did he choose the Leica for it's image aesthetic or because it was compact?
I think it's unfair to the general public to pose a picture that is, what, at least 50 years old (not sure the exact date he took that one) as a modern picture shot with a digital camera. If this picture had been shot with a dSLR, chances are better than not a mistake WAS made in the shooting of the picture (in other words, given a random picture, it's more likely the person didn't know what they were doing rather than they purposely manipulated the shot to be soft).
I do like the picture quite a bit, but I sorta cluck at the "we're-so-awesome-cuz-we-identified-a-picture-and-they-are-cretins-because-they-didn't" crowd. |
I'm not sure the digital camera exists yet that would work with HCB's shooting style. |
I'm intrigued. Tell me what you mean by this. |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 02:11:37 AM · #37 |
smardaz wrote:
"IMO, just because a "master" takes a picture does not make it infallible and it does not mean it can not be improved upon. they also can make mistakes. i do think that once someone reaches a certain status people just take for granted everything they do is great or genius."
Not sure "infallible" is appropriate here. We are discussing art, not proofs for the existence of trolls. Musicians may make "mistakes" in a perfomance, but that performance can still be awesome. Mastering an art form is not solely a matter of perfection nor of technical prowess; mastery is the ability to use the medium to say what you mean. A musician can have a totally off night, even without making mistakes.
|
|
|
|
06/15/2009 03:04:25 AM · #38 |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 06:11:53 AM · #39 |
Oh well, I guess it's the right time for the article again:
Pearls before breakfast |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 07:18:03 AM · #40 |
haha greatness! thanks for posting this, really worth a read. |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 07:28:21 AM · #41 |
| Well, can't help how I feel, doesn't matter who took the photo or why. I find nothing interesting or compelling or artistic in this particular shot. |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 07:47:23 AM · #42 |
zxaar it seems to me that you are very much implying that if a member of Joe Public took that shot then it would be ok for people to dismiss it as not very good even though they may have been trying for that very image, however as HCB took the shot then the same rules do not apply and people should not say anything bad about it? Forgive me if this is not your intention, it's just how it comes across (to me at least).
I will say before I saw the thread unfold I took a look at the image, found it intriguing enough to look at for a few minutes and quite liked it, doesn't make me go Wow although I did notice the wonderful leading lines immediately and thought how clever it was to find that spot to take an image from. |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 08:25:58 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I do like the picture quite a bit, but I sorta cluck at the "we're-so-awesome-cuz-we-identified-a-picture-and-they-are-cretins-because-they-didn't" crowd. |
(my bold added to Docs quote)
THIS! In spades! I liked the composition and how the blurred biker looked like it was the string someone pulled that would spin the whole spiral composition into a spinning yo-yo. Glad I stumbled across the thread as I'd never seen this image. As for Henri, like any dead photo god I can take him or leave him. I'm not a worshiper. Most of them tread the uncertain steps of their days flickr. They dazzled and became famous, and then nothing they did could be wrong. The Icelandic girl in the article is going down the same route. Decades from now maybe one of her more obscure images will be posted anon for people to critique. I seem to remember that early in the history of DPC photogod Ansel was placed in a challenge and didn't do so well. Just goes to show that art is an individual thing. Only when groups of like minded people gather around a style or a god will art shine. In an individual voting environment even Mona Lisa will take it on the chin. :)
|
|
|
|
06/15/2009 08:29:46 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by Mark-A:
zxaar it seems to me that you are very much implying that if a member of Joe Public took that shot then it would be ok for people to dismiss it as not very good even though they may have been trying for that very image, however as HCB took the shot then the same rules do not apply and people should not say anything bad about it? Forgive me if this is not your intention, it's just how it comes across (to me at least).
I will say before I saw the thread unfold I took a look at the image, found it intriguing enough to look at for a few minutes and quite liked it, doesn't make me go Wow although I did notice the wonderful leading lines immediately and thought how clever it was to find that spot to take an image from. |
well read this comment about that photo.
Originally posted by someone:
"Why is the staircase so "soft"? Camera shake?" |
Now do you really think that HCB does not understand concept of focus and sharpness in photos.
This is what i am saying. If he thought it was okey and i would respect it.
in other words if it was taken by a school student, and if my reaction was that student should learn focusing etc, its valid because i am no way sure whether a student really grasps it or not.
Composition-wise it would not have mattered to me, it would be same no matter who took it.
For example if it were at dpc, i would have given it 7-8 (which is what i usually give to strong compositions). On the other hand i have given plenty of 10s for composition in dpc challenges.
Does it mean they understand more of photography. I am not sure, but i know that a person of his stature does understand basic concepts.
Message edited by author 2009-06-15 08:31:01. |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 08:47:51 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by FireBird:
I seem to remember that early in the history of DPC photogod Ansel was placed in a challenge and didn't do so well. |
It was February, 2005, and he finished in the top 10 actually in "his own" challenge, Ansel Adams I. It was a good result considering the "entry" was a mediocre scan lifted from the net of one of his architectural photos, not one of his more recognizable landscapes. Faith in the voters was somewhat reinforced by his high finish :-)
R. |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 08:56:14 AM · #46 |
Regarding HCB and such issues as whether he "knows" how to get sharpness in his photos etc; regarding whether we ought to judge the image more "harshly" if it were shot by an amateur who missed critical sharpness because he didn't "know" and cut HCB some slack because he "knew" and chose to disregard; well, in my mind that's total a red herring of an issue. Here's the way I look at it:
The image, in the end, will stand or fail on its own. HCB certainly understood this, just as he understood that it as NOT critically sharp, and that many would perceive this as a flaw. But HCB wasn't *about* precision, he was about fleeting instants grasped in passing, and technical issues were entirely secondary to his art. He chose to put this particular image up for public scrutiny, meaning it passed muster in his eyes despite its "flaws", and we all could learn a lot from that.
How many meaningful-but-flawed images have YOU buried in your life, out of fear they'd be rejected for technical reasons?
R. |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 09:11:38 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Regarding HCB and such issues as whether he "knows" how to get sharpness in his photos etc; regarding whether we ought to judge the image more "harshly" if it were shot by an amateur who missed critical sharpness because he didn't "know" and cut HCB some slack because he "knew" and chose to disregard; well, in my mind that's total a red herring of an issue. Here's the way I look at it:
The image, in the end, will stand or fail on its own. HCB certainly understood this, just as he understood that it as NOT critically sharp, and that many would perceive this as a flaw. But HCB wasn't *about* precision, he was about fleeting instants grasped in passing, and technical issues were entirely secondary to his art. He chose to put this particular image up for public scrutiny, meaning it passed muster in his eyes despite its "flaws", and we all could learn a lot from that.
How many meaningful-but-flawed images have YOU buried in your life, out of fear they'd be rejected for technical reasons?
R. |
I put up meaningful-but-flawed images in most challenges! LOL! And yes, they are usually rejected! My highest score here was a very flawed image, yet people loved it. |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 09:12:44 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
How many meaningful-but-flawed images have YOU buried in your life, out of fear they'd be rejected for technical reasons?
R. |
About 99.8% of what I shoot. |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 09:51:20 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by tnun:
smardaz wrote:
"IMO, just because a "master" takes a picture does not make it infallible and it does not mean it can not be improved upon. they also can make mistakes. i do think that once someone reaches a certain status people just take for granted everything they do is great or genius."
Not sure "infallible" is appropriate here. We are discussing art, not proofs for the existence of trolls. Musicians may make "mistakes" in a perfomance, but that performance can still be awesome. Mastering an art form is not solely a matter of perfection nor of technical prowess; mastery is the ability to use the medium to say what you mean. A musician can have a totally off night, even without making mistakes. |
I appreciate your point, mostly i was saying this in response to zxaar's post about not judging the sharpness of his photo. |
|
|
|
06/15/2009 10:11:43 AM · #50 |
if you want some more recent imagery to give the conversation context, check out David Friend's book The Meaning of Life, a collection of images from Life Magazine combined with over 300 mini-essays.
the impact of these images have nothing to do with technicals. these images succeed because they connect with the viewers.
if you look at photos just to find eye-candy or technically sound imagery, you are going to miss the world you live in. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/17/2025 09:46:01 PM EDT.
