dfoo
Well-known
I'm an impartial observer, and don't have an opinion either way. That said, I don't see Bill directly attacking you. OTOH, I see you directly attacking him. What's that all about?
notturtle
Well-known
Does one have to agonise over a philosophy? Does it have to be at the expense of taking images? Surely this is something which can be developed concurrently as part of the process of choosing what to go out and shoot and actually doing so. I find it takes place mostly in between shooting, when printing, after printing and looking at bodies of work, getting feedback etc.
Personally, the images I shoot contribute to the process of self-appraisal and adjusting my direction. I don't stay in to 'think deeply' rather than shoot images if that is whats being suggested. I do, however, tend to go out with new ideas as to what I can do to work towards being at better photographer as I see it. That may include technical goals, but more often than not they are related to the desired feel of the resultant images or a way of being responsive to the unexpected.
Going out and shooting a lot surely polishes technique, but if there is no underlying thought behind what you do, does the polishing itself go in any particular direction and therefore achieve particular outcome or conclusions? To what end - technically better? If the images are just plain 'better' as you see them there is likely to be a reason and the appreciation of that fact surely lies in the achievement of some sort of desired end result/positive response - if so, what is this? What I am trying to say is that however simple, there is some sort of philosophy that underpins taking pictures for most people, regardless of whether it is one that requires great concentration to articulate or one which is incredibly simple (like I love shots that show my kids happy and having fun).
Shooting more, with no real thought will improve one's photography in which way? Sharper, better exposure etc? Most people agree that technical perfection with little else makes for awfully boring photography, hence my belief that there has to be something else getting exercised (other than the shutter) if we are to truly improve beyond 'proficient operator of image capture device.'
I do hope this is not construed as 'nose in the air' talk
Personally, the images I shoot contribute to the process of self-appraisal and adjusting my direction. I don't stay in to 'think deeply' rather than shoot images if that is whats being suggested. I do, however, tend to go out with new ideas as to what I can do to work towards being at better photographer as I see it. That may include technical goals, but more often than not they are related to the desired feel of the resultant images or a way of being responsive to the unexpected.
Going out and shooting a lot surely polishes technique, but if there is no underlying thought behind what you do, does the polishing itself go in any particular direction and therefore achieve particular outcome or conclusions? To what end - technically better? If the images are just plain 'better' as you see them there is likely to be a reason and the appreciation of that fact surely lies in the achievement of some sort of desired end result/positive response - if so, what is this? What I am trying to say is that however simple, there is some sort of philosophy that underpins taking pictures for most people, regardless of whether it is one that requires great concentration to articulate or one which is incredibly simple (like I love shots that show my kids happy and having fun).
Shooting more, with no real thought will improve one's photography in which way? Sharper, better exposure etc? Most people agree that technical perfection with little else makes for awfully boring photography, hence my belief that there has to be something else getting exercised (other than the shutter) if we are to truly improve beyond 'proficient operator of image capture device.'
I do hope this is not construed as 'nose in the air' talk
Last edited:
JohnTF
Veteran
Thirty years in public education, Twenty Four in University, you hear a few things. ;-) Had no idea if I spelled it correctly. I think they were designed for the food industry.
Blunt is also a brand name, got kind of suspicious when I saw a 16 yr. old girl across the street from the school smoking a cigar.
Local CVS carries that stuff, close to the door of course.
J
JohnTF
Veteran
Thanks, I was terrible with the one with my Apple IIgs, am sure I could be more terrible with this one? ;-) J
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Who tf is Ren Faire?
And this thread is yet another example why most serious threads don't stay serious: it degenerates into long, verbose counterarguments to the counterarguments about why the argument is not the argument about the problem about what are you talking about no you are not yes you are you suck no you do well suck it no you suck it.
Socrates did.
And this thread is yet another example why most serious threads don't stay serious: it degenerates into long, verbose counterarguments to the counterarguments about why the argument is not the argument about the problem about what are you talking about no you are not yes you are you suck no you do well suck it no you suck it.
notturtle said:
Socrates did.
back alley
IMAGES
gabriel
some people want to learn
some people want to be happy
and some people just want to be right
these people often ruin it for the others
some people want to learn
some people want to be happy
and some people just want to be right
these people often ruin it for the others
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I'm cornfused. Sad, nonlearning, wrong people make it ok?
Symeon
Established
Art and Philosophy always went together and were condemned equally together. Photography is a pictorial art whose roots are in European Humanism which gave us the Renaissance, realism, impressionism, surrealism, psychology, photography, the cinema and the rest. There is a continuity to it and a tradition which is too Western and not very Oriental to contemplate "using" Zen. Buddhism is OK but why go to the trouble to photograph illusion in the first place? Heideger once said, "reality is being there, standing still, and curiously."
regards.
regards.
antiquark
Derek Ross
Since this thread is thorougly derailed, I'll add a few non-sequitors:
- Snobbery is a two way street. It's about one group feeling superior to another group. When you hear someone giggling about how city slickers don't know how to field-dress a moose, well they're being snobs themselves.
- I imagine Ren Faires are sorta like Cons in that people simply enjoy dressing up and playing a role. I doubt that the people at Ren Faires reminisce about the days when the best cleaning fluid was piss.
- Some people like arguing for the sake of arguing.
- I'm Canadian, and my parents didn't have electricity, cars, etc, when they were kids.
- Snobbery is a two way street. It's about one group feeling superior to another group. When you hear someone giggling about how city slickers don't know how to field-dress a moose, well they're being snobs themselves.
- I imagine Ren Faires are sorta like Cons in that people simply enjoy dressing up and playing a role. I doubt that the people at Ren Faires reminisce about the days when the best cleaning fluid was piss.
- Some people like arguing for the sake of arguing.
- I'm Canadian, and my parents didn't have electricity, cars, etc, when they were kids.
back alley
IMAGES
we're getting close to closing this thread, i think.
why can't we all just get along...
why can't we all just get along...
FrankS
Registered User
"Buddhism is OK but why go to the trouble to photograph illusion in the first place?"
LOL! I like that. (Did you read this, Earl?)
Photography does help me with Zen though. Clear the mind, be in the moment.
LOL! I like that. (Did you read this, Earl?)
Photography does help me with Zen though. Clear the mind, be in the moment.
notturtle
Well-known
Perhaps there should be a 'come here to fight' thread posted to allow those who evidently seek it to satisfy themselves...
Can we stay on topic, maybe, please?
Can we stay on topic, maybe, please?
JohnTF
Veteran
Who tf is Ren Faire?
And this thread is yet another example why most serious threads don't stay serious: it degenerates into long, verbose counterarguments to the counterarguments about why the argument is not the argument about the problem about what are you talking about no you are not yes you are you suck no you do well suck it no you suck it.
Socrates did.
Well, to hear it from Plato he agonized over several. Yet another BA in Philosophy whose parents grew up with out electricity, running water, cars. Mom had a pony though, Trixie.
Last edited: