_larky
Well-known
I am finding, more and more, I have no idea what the majority like - it makes me feel very out of touch, lonely to a degree. I'm trying to be much more critical of my photography now, for every 100 shots I keep 1 for example. But then people see my discards, and they much prefer them to my chosen shot.
So I go back to square one. If there were a group in London where we could give constructive, friendly feedback, I'd love to attend. MAybe we could hook up something on IRC?
So I go back to square one. If there were a group in London where we could give constructive, friendly feedback, I'd love to attend. MAybe we could hook up something on IRC?
Sparrow
Veteran
Aesthetics follows a few fairly simple guidelines that the vast majority of the population perceive in the same way. They can be learned and understood if one is prepared to make the effort, and sometimes they can even be applied to photography.
Oh, and people who claim "rules are made to be broken" I suspect can't be bothered to learn them
Oh, and people who claim "rules are made to be broken" I suspect can't be bothered to learn them
Haigh
Gary Haigh
As one of the posts said, it is a mystery. The image has to mean something to me (and that really can't be verbalised) and after that other peoples reaction is up to them of course.
Vilk
Established
Do you understand why it's good?
Yes.
Yes.
L David Tomei
Well-known
Personally, I have gone back to "square one" so many times that I decided to just stay there. At a certain point in life it is no longer important to understand why people like a particular image... unless, of course, my living depends upon it.
_larky
Well-known
Here's one I don't understand, I can't see anything about it I like, but people seem to love it:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulrussell/5455907462/in/pool-94761711@N00/
No offense intended to the photographer. I just can't understand it. I'd like to.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulrussell/5455907462/in/pool-94761711@N00/
No offense intended to the photographer. I just can't understand it. I'd like to.
_larky
Well-known
But this one:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/justinsdisgustin/5373850876/in/pool-94761711@N00/
Wow, I love this shot.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/justinsdisgustin/5373850876/in/pool-94761711@N00/
Wow, I love this shot.
alistair.o
Well-known
Well, I looked at it and am glad to say I too like it. From its 3D aspect to the proportions of the guy carrying the package compared to the red cord etc,. To me it's as though the guys are on a different walkway i.e. keeping off the red carpet and for one moment I thought the block work was parquet flooring (wood block)
redisburning
Well-known
step 1. take boring shot
step 2. add fake vignetting
step 3. screw up color balance with curves
step 4. pretentious title
step 5. 60 comments on flickr
maybe Im just bitter because I cant even get people to tell me my photos suck on flickr?
being serious for a moment, I cannot consider art "in context". it has to stand on its own, IMO. I hate to harp on someone who has literally infinity times more success in photography than myself, but I do not think it possible to explain Martin Parr to me in such a way that I will consider his photographs art or good or any combination of the two.
The way eyes work is to scan an image. I think this goes a long way in describing a lot of the human aesthetic as it applies to photography. People have, intuitively I guess, figured out techniques to control how you scan. The better the person is at doing that, the better the resulting image is.
That is why a shot that was taken in a snap looks like it was taken in a snap. Not that that's bad, of course, but it just "feels" different than a shot that was carefully composed.
Anyway if you view the arrangement of objects, choice of focus/color/etc, subject selection in this context, I think that covers most of it. Not all, but most of it. The really great artists master that stuff first THEN go to work on theme, motif, messages, etc.
step 2. add fake vignetting
step 3. screw up color balance with curves
step 4. pretentious title
step 5. 60 comments on flickr
maybe Im just bitter because I cant even get people to tell me my photos suck on flickr?
being serious for a moment, I cannot consider art "in context". it has to stand on its own, IMO. I hate to harp on someone who has literally infinity times more success in photography than myself, but I do not think it possible to explain Martin Parr to me in such a way that I will consider his photographs art or good or any combination of the two.
The way eyes work is to scan an image. I think this goes a long way in describing a lot of the human aesthetic as it applies to photography. People have, intuitively I guess, figured out techniques to control how you scan. The better the person is at doing that, the better the resulting image is.
That is why a shot that was taken in a snap looks like it was taken in a snap. Not that that's bad, of course, but it just "feels" different than a shot that was carefully composed.
Anyway if you view the arrangement of objects, choice of focus/color/etc, subject selection in this context, I think that covers most of it. Not all, but most of it. The really great artists master that stuff first THEN go to work on theme, motif, messages, etc.
NLewis
Established
Many people will say they like stuff that stinks. A lot of that extreme-HDR stuff is actually popular! Many people will even pay for stuff that stinks.
It's just the way it is. Is the most popular music the best music? Is the most popular movie the best movie?
It's just the way it is. Is the most popular music the best music? Is the most popular movie the best movie?
antiquark
Derek Ross
Are you ever surprised that you have a photo you really like and no one else seems to care?
There's a flickr group for that...
http://www.flickr.com/groups/neglected_photographs/
Do you also find that there are images others rave about and you just can’t see what makes it great? The Eggelston “Why is it????”
I'm not a fan of every photographer, but usually I understand the reasons why other people like them.
thread got me thinking; how many of you feel like you understand why a particular image is well received?
Here's a sort of backwards answer: I don't know why a good picture is good, but I can usually explain why a bad picture is bad.
I guess my question also is how do you evaluate your own work in an attempt to improve upon it?
There was a self-critique thread around here somewhere, in fact I think it might have been made "sticky."
UPDATE:
Here's the self critique thread:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97485&highlight=self+critique
There's a flickr group for that...
http://www.flickr.com/groups/neglected_photographs/
Do you also find that there are images others rave about and you just can’t see what makes it great? The Eggelston “Why is it????”
I'm not a fan of every photographer, but usually I understand the reasons why other people like them.
thread got me thinking; how many of you feel like you understand why a particular image is well received?
Here's a sort of backwards answer: I don't know why a good picture is good, but I can usually explain why a bad picture is bad.
I guess my question also is how do you evaluate your own work in an attempt to improve upon it?
There was a self-critique thread around here somewhere, in fact I think it might have been made "sticky."
UPDATE:
Here's the self critique thread:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97485&highlight=self+critique
Last edited:
ferider
Veteran
It's a very good question.
If you edit your pictures rigorously, and have them reviewed as much as possible, you'll end up being able to do both: pictures that you are satisfied with, and pictures that others like. They are often not the same and don't have to be, depending why you shoot.
In fact, the fun and challenge of learning both is for me the core of why I photograph.
I guess it's also one of the reasons why I shoot film, since the "review" (including development, post, etc.) forces more of my involvement.
Roland.
If you edit your pictures rigorously, and have them reviewed as much as possible, you'll end up being able to do both: pictures that you are satisfied with, and pictures that others like. They are often not the same and don't have to be, depending why you shoot.
In fact, the fun and challenge of learning both is for me the core of why I photograph.
I guess it's also one of the reasons why I shoot film, since the "review" (including development, post, etc.) forces more of my involvement.
Roland.
Trooper
Well-known
Here is one of mine that I like, but I don't think it is close to my best. Yet, others seem to love it and I can't figure out why. Photography is so subjective...
ackers8888
Member
i try to look at my photos like i am looking at the work of someone else and judging it. my favourites are never the favourites of others. people tend to prefer ironic, witty, clever shots. these bore me to death. i mean sure, they are great at the first glance, but after that? not enticing for me in the long run.
Steve M.
Veteran
I base my own work's value by my own criteria. 99.9% of it fails, some miserably, some by an inch. Only an idiot would let someone else decide a work's value for them, well intended or not. This is why artists (photographers, sculptors, etc) have closed studios, and why you or I don't get in w/o an invite. All these different opinions are only confusing and essentially meaningless. Now if they come from another artist, that may be different. Maybe not. Depends.
I'll give you these examples. I once had been working on this large painting of a nude gal for some time, and thought it was going along pretty well. A very good artist friend came over one night, classically trained from London, and the first thing he said was "her feet are too small". He was right, they were. But it would have worked fine like it was too. It didn't need to be a perfect example of representative work, but that's what Brian painted, so that's what he saw. Another time someone else, not an artist, was in the studio for some other reason, and they said "I like that" about a piece I was working on. I said thanks, but it was far from finished. They then said "Yes, but it looks great as it is. It looks finished to me". From that point on I was unable to finish the work. You can't let other people get in your head when you're creating. There's only room for one mind up there, and it had best be yours, not someone else's. Creativity is like smoke and the wind. You can't capture it, but you can sure lose it for periods of time. Getting other people's stuff in your head when you're working is a good way to lose it. At some point we all need to look at our own work and say this works, this doesn't, and be done w/ it so we can go on to the next thing. It's a visual thing anyway, not verbal.
I'll give you these examples. I once had been working on this large painting of a nude gal for some time, and thought it was going along pretty well. A very good artist friend came over one night, classically trained from London, and the first thing he said was "her feet are too small". He was right, they were. But it would have worked fine like it was too. It didn't need to be a perfect example of representative work, but that's what Brian painted, so that's what he saw. Another time someone else, not an artist, was in the studio for some other reason, and they said "I like that" about a piece I was working on. I said thanks, but it was far from finished. They then said "Yes, but it looks great as it is. It looks finished to me". From that point on I was unable to finish the work. You can't let other people get in your head when you're creating. There's only room for one mind up there, and it had best be yours, not someone else's. Creativity is like smoke and the wind. You can't capture it, but you can sure lose it for periods of time. Getting other people's stuff in your head when you're working is a good way to lose it. At some point we all need to look at our own work and say this works, this doesn't, and be done w/ it so we can go on to the next thing. It's a visual thing anyway, not verbal.
Last edited:
SciAggie
Well-known
Since this thread has resurfaced, I want to rephrase my original question. I was never really referring to my own work; my curiosity is arroused by the work of others. Sometimes here on this forum or elsewhere, there will be an image that recieves a lot of views and comments and I can't find anything spectacular about the image. I am also not talking about like/ dislike. It is one thing to understand why someone enjoys an image even if you do not; I just wonder if anyone else here is at a loss at times to "see" why others like an image that you may find plain and - boring - for lack of a better word.
I am curious if anyone else thinks it is a valid exercise to try to see a photo from someone else's point of view.
I am curious if anyone else thinks it is a valid exercise to try to see a photo from someone else's point of view.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Probably not. There's a Goon Show line to the following effectt (from Neddie Seagoon):
Little do they know that if I knew a little of the little that they know, then I'd know a little.
If someone likes my work, clearly they are a person of taste and intelligence. If not, they aren't (and may well be an editor to boot). But unless I have some faith in what I do, why should anyone else?
Pretty much the same applies to their opinion of others' work, too (assuming I like it).
Cheers,
R.
retnull
Well-known
The best photos are the ones in which the photographer has some strong emotional connection to the subject. It could be love, hate, desire, revulsion, curiosity, whatever.
Without this emotional charge, you could say the camera made the image, and not the photographer.
Without this emotional charge, you could say the camera made the image, and not the photographer.
SciAggie
Well-known
As an educator, every year I do a little exercise with my students. I will tell the class to close their eyes and think of/ imagine a rabbit - not very difficult. It becomes interesting when I poll students as to the kind of rabbit that they envisioned. They range from cotton tails, to jack rabbits, to Bugs Bunny, to the Playboy bunny. The point is that what one thinks is a simple and silly exercise is not so simple.
Side stepping the educational point, the photographic implication is interesting - apparently only to me. I consider a photograph to be a physical artifact that represents in some way the capturing of a mental image. When I can't "see" what others "see" in an image, it is curious to me and I wonder what is is that they find intersting that I do not.
I suppose it is a requirement for me try and discern what's going on in the minds of my students. I am just idly curious about what others find pleasing in an image that perhaps I cannot.
Side stepping the educational point, the photographic implication is interesting - apparently only to me. I consider a photograph to be a physical artifact that represents in some way the capturing of a mental image. When I can't "see" what others "see" in an image, it is curious to me and I wonder what is is that they find intersting that I do not.
I suppose it is a requirement for me try and discern what's going on in the minds of my students. I am just idly curious about what others find pleasing in an image that perhaps I cannot.
Is it only one-directional, or does it puzzle you also when/if you find an image interesting when others do not? And either way do you question your own aesthetic judgment?