16-year kid shames me and probably you too

Status
Not open for further replies.
<16 year old me> Yo, Forum Fogies - why you gotta be haters? </16 year old me>

Smirking wryly,
Dave
 
hatersgonnahateu.gif
 
Last edited:
Neare said:
Will these photos be remembered?

But anyway, the kids posted here are obviously very talented. But we only ever see the final product and only the 1 shot out of god knows how many they took.
I'd be more interested to know what their photography is like away from the studio type shots. Away from telling a person to dress that way and look this what and that etc. I think true photographic 'talent' is represented when everything is in the moment.
Click to expand...

Have you much experience of studio photography? Because most photographers I know reckon that good studio photography is very different from (and often significantly more difficult than) taking pictures 'when everything is in the moment' -- though in all fairness I may be misunderstanding what you mean by 'when everything is in the moment'.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Have you much experience of studio photography? Because most photographers I know reckon that good studio photography is very different from (and often significantly more difficult than) taking pictures 'when everything is in the moment' -- though in all fairness I may be misunderstanding what you mean by 'when everything is in the moment'.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Done a bit myself, though I've been on the other side of the camera more often. :eek:

Roger I agree completely with what you're saying. Creating a scene can be much more difficult than just being able to see something and take it. But being able to see a scene that is not created by the photographer themselves, however is then made into a great photo is an, IMO, important aspect of the great and talented.
Then again, I suppose we are all talented in specific areas more so than others.
 
Last edited:
Ok after wading through this, I'll give the kids jighlighted credit for having a decent eye. The photos though are typical hipster emo stuff and nothing i haven't seen a lot on Flickr. It's great that they are out there and developing but at this point none of them have brought anything particularly original to the table. I'm sure some of them will though as they move through phases. when i was there age punk was just beginning and the photos i took back then were all gritty b/w disaffected youth ( think Anton Corbin Joy division shots)all those negs are long gone for various reasons but every time someone i know gets an old picture published (usually a band shot) I kick myself for not being more diligent
 
I find it odd how photography is often glommed together under the single generic category of "photography." By that I mean, often there is no clarification of a particular style of photography... it's just "photography" in general.

For example: to say "the 16-year-old is a good photographer," is like saying "Miley Cyrus is a good singer" and "Gustav Holst wrote good music." The only similarity between Cyrus and Holst is that they write/wrote music... it's silly to compare them as if they're doing the same thing!

Young kids don't care about Holst, and old men don't care about Cyrus. In music, that's acceptable, but in photography, you're criticized if you point that out.

Strange how that is.
 
Neare said:
Done a bit myself, though I've been on the other side of the camera more often. :eek:

Roger I agree completely with what you're saying. Creating a scene can be much more difficult than just being able to see something and take it. But being able to see a scene that is not created by the photographer themselves, however is then made into a great photo is an, IMO, important aspect of the great and talented.
Then again, I suppose we are all talented in specific areas more so than others.
Click to expand...

I think that's about it. After all, what about Angus McBean, or Man Ray, or Noel Griggs, or Julia Margaret Cameron or Roger Fenton (an all-round genius, it's true), or...?

Most studio photography is 'concealed' in advertising or portraiture, but that does not make it one whit less dependent on talent than 'found' or 'reportage' photography.

Cheers,

R.
 
Haha, the first thing came to my mind when I saw the boy's photos, that he can earn good on istock photo :)

no need to be ashamed of anything. just do your work what you enjoy. if it is different it will be recognized...

Well, I need to say it is not different than other stock photos on the net...but it is good for his age.

Some people like to photography simple things like signs, shadows or streets, the details in them we see everyday, compared to human skin or cute girls,
 
Last edited:
Photography has become another past-time for the malcontent bourgeois, especially with ease of digital cameras.

With photography they can overcome their consumerist guilt under the guise of "art".
 
ebino said:
Photography has become another past-time for the malcontent bourgeois, especially with ease of digital cameras.

With photography they can overcome their consumerist guilt under the guise of "art".
Click to expand...

You really should make more use of "smileys," it's hard to tell if you're joking or being serious. ;)
 
I think that the only reason that this thread has gotten as many responses as it has is because of the inflammatory nature of the thread title ("this punk kid photographer may be way better than all of you!") What he does is fine for his age, but I don't really think it warrants the strong reactions that some people seem to be having...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom