you are not a photographer

Or just pretend, for that matter. There's gotta be a place for the better, and I know it's where I belong!
 
Last edited:
A lot of condescension on this thread... What's the big deal? If you like cheap tacky pics, then hire one of the 100$ photo-moms... Otherwise pick a professional, and pay accordingly.

The same way, if you want to look at tons of crap, then go on flicker. For good work there are museums, bookstores, galleries and dozens of personal websites from amazing photographers.

Since when being able to choose has become such a bad thing?
 
jack palmer said:
I don't get what everyone is so upset about.This website exposes these"professional photographers" for peddling junk and some think it could use a little "buttering over" or they just need to be educated ? I say they need another line of work. It's not even really funny it's just pathetic. And who cares what the bloggers photos look like as if that's a criteria for recognizing and posting below average work.
Click to expand...

I hope people out there calling other people 'pathetic' are good enough themselves to judge others so harshly.
 
leicashot said:
I hope people out there calling other people 'pathetic' are good enough themselves to judge others so harshly.
Click to expand...

That's like saying Roger Ebert shouldn't critique Rob Schneider movies because he couldn't even make a good movie.

Criticism does not need to be followed by showing what you got.
 
igi said:
That's like saying Roger Ebert shouldn't critique Rob Schneider movies because he couldn't even make a good movie.

Criticism does not need to be followed by showing what you got.
Click to expand...


No, but in order to be taken seriously as a critique, and not just as an attack, you need something to back it up. Art critics don't need to have an Art degree themselves, or have made any body of work, but they do need to show command of the subject matter. Otherwise it's just an opinion. And as far as opinions go, any of them by themselves are good enough to shoot any other, which then turn into just arguments. Arguments, per se, are not a "critique".
 
Ranchu said:
That's because they let everyone post on flickr. I like to see what people choose for themselves, rather than have a middleman predigest it for me. Middlemen put out a ton of ****, it's axiomatic. I'm sure you've seen tons of work hyped at you from authoritative sources that just wasn't all that much of anything, really. I could even say most work hyped at you sucks. I think there's been an increase in that occurring at least as large as the increase in creativity by people who don't necessarily have a knack for it. Mocking people like the site posted does, is just snotty classist bs from people desperate to stay in the club, same old, same old.
Click to expand...

the problem with what you are saying is that one must assume folks such as km-25, and myself as i agree with most of what he said, aren't smart enough to see past what the 'establishment' is telling us. truthfully i find that a little insulting. this could also apply to the 'establishment' itself. most of the work 'hyped at me' (if i may borrow) most certainly does not suck. the bulk of of it is inspiring and very, very good.

the default to good and bad with nothing in the middle is befuddling. it has been ingrained in us. pick a side and ignore the complex middle ground.

you are probably right, middle men/women (whomever they might be) have the ability to pump out a lot of crap. some amateur shooters are extremely talented and 'professional' is a highly subjective word. how this prevents the images presented on the site from being funny to some is the leap i can't quite get on board with.

all this is said with the understanding that i did not spend more than a second or two reading the titles/comments etc. i also have no idea who is behind the site and will probably remain that way due to lack of interest.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
PKR said:
You can look at Graphis - no membership required, and generally better stuff in my opinion.

http://www.graphis.com/

Some people can't tell the difference - I'm fine with that. Cameras need to be sold in order to encourage advancements and to keep prices reasonable.
Click to expand...

my friend, i will assume that you know you cannot receive pm's. with that said, spot on message mate! when i finally attempt to understand the role of color in my work i will appreciate some of your input!
 
Hey, this reminds me of a great website where there is a guy who uploads children's drawings and then rips them apart...
Anyone want to hit me with that link?
Thanks!
 
There's so much being said in this thread (hey, that rhymes, maybe I can become a poet?) and I don't think John's intent was to start such a huge discussion (or maybe it was?).

I would concur that there's a LOT of ***tastic photos online. The quote from Stewie Griffin (a la "Family Guy") is true for a whole load of people, not just women.

I can only speak to the wedding crap that I've seen online. I rarely post a lot of my wedding stuff online because, really, who gives a **** if some other photographer (wedding or otherwise) likes the work - sure it makes me feel "ok" but in the end, if the customer doesn't like it, then the work sucks; MY work sucks regardless of what *I* think of it or anyone else thinks of it EXCEPT for my client. If it's a crappy photo, my client may like it and then that's all that matters.

HOWEVER - herein lies a problem already stated earlier in the thread - people, in general, don't know what is good versus what is ****. Most of the time what the general pop'n believes is good work is from a combination of things: 1) Online Back Slapping forums 2) The media (print or online) 3) Their friends/peers/influential folks they know. Many people also lack the ability to discern between a trend and true lasting style. For example, good lighting and proper use of it never goes out of style. Taking photos and adding a bunch of actions to them in order to make them look "vintage" is a trend. There's a difference and people usually don't know the difference till it's 15-20 yrs after their wedding and they look at their album filled with "vintage" photos and wonder what were they thinking when they hired that photographer....

Spyro's quote on this forum always rings true to me in discussions such as these: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1319519&postcount=30

Thanks for starting the thread John 🙂

Cheers,
Dave
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Half baked. Not very funny. Kinda mean.

Also, poor color selection and predictably bad typography. Hey, that gives me a couple ideas for a new website!:

"You are NOT a web developer."

"You are NOT a graphic designer."


tumblr_lmcem7fGUE1qk1y4lo1_400.jpg
 
Last edited:
I hope a lot of the supporters of the site posting here are amazing photographers. Just because you 'don't' use photoshop doesn't mean you're any better than those that do.

Wonder what you'll be thinking when one of your own pictures is attacked (not critiqued). Critique would also entail the photographer being told how to improve their pictures. There is a difference and its obvious many of the site's supporters don't know the difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
The mystery photographer of '60s San Francisco and undeveloped Kodachrome
Replies
16
Views
1K
bcostin
bcostin
xayraa33
Photographer Daniel Kramer dead at 91
Replies
0
Views
320
xayraa33
xayraa33
ddutchison2
DIY Full-Frame Digital Camera Released On Github
Replies
5
Views
1K
wlewisiii
W
Dan
Book recommendations needed
Replies
0
Views
174
Dan
Dan
maigo
Recuerdo - Latin American Photography at Art Gallery of Ontario (AGO)
Replies
0
Views
112
maigo
maigo
Back
Top Bottom