SciAggie
Well-known
I was thinking this morning that this sentiment is both a blessing and a curse for photographers.
I am a much better photographer now as a result of some of the time I have spent here at RFF. I often see images produced by others that inspire me to go out and learn new techniques and methods. I nearly always find that mastering a new technique or skill is much more difficult than it may at first appear. It follows then that I go through a period where I produce a lot of junk images - some of those sometimes tiresome images we become bored with. For me, I have to go through that period where I copy what I have seen, and do it poorly, before I reach a point where I can use the new skill to create images that are really my own (and they may be boring). The time I spend shooting makes me respect the work that is done well by others as well as attempts by others to improve. This is also the curse.
I have trouble understanding why some get so bent out of shape when viewing famous or popular photos made by others. The Gursky thread comes to mind (I don't want to start a war over artists). I just mean it is easy to say. "I could do that" - but have you actually tried? The HCB image of the man jumping the puddle also comes to mind. We could make a long list. The point is
I am not sure what it is about photographers that makes us reluctant to celebrate the quality work of others.
I am curious to know if anyone else has thought "they could do that" when looking at an image only to find it more challenging than they anticipated?
I am a much better photographer now as a result of some of the time I have spent here at RFF. I often see images produced by others that inspire me to go out and learn new techniques and methods. I nearly always find that mastering a new technique or skill is much more difficult than it may at first appear. It follows then that I go through a period where I produce a lot of junk images - some of those sometimes tiresome images we become bored with. For me, I have to go through that period where I copy what I have seen, and do it poorly, before I reach a point where I can use the new skill to create images that are really my own (and they may be boring). The time I spend shooting makes me respect the work that is done well by others as well as attempts by others to improve. This is also the curse.
I have trouble understanding why some get so bent out of shape when viewing famous or popular photos made by others. The Gursky thread comes to mind (I don't want to start a war over artists). I just mean it is easy to say. "I could do that" - but have you actually tried? The HCB image of the man jumping the puddle also comes to mind. We could make a long list. The point is
I am not sure what it is about photographers that makes us reluctant to celebrate the quality work of others.
I am curious to know if anyone else has thought "they could do that" when looking at an image only to find it more challenging than they anticipated?
Ducky
Well-known
True, the experts make it look easy but when we try and fail we learn otherwise.
On the other hand, I often wonder, for example, if HCB could duplicate that famous shot if he tried. Sometimes chance, even luck, comes into play.
I have made a few really nice photographs, but I'm not always sure what I did.
On the other hand, I often wonder, for example, if HCB could duplicate that famous shot if he tried. Sometimes chance, even luck, comes into play.
I have made a few really nice photographs, but I'm not always sure what I did.
SciAggie
Well-known
That is certainly true, but even at that I find that being prepared makes those "lucky" shots more likely. I see a lot of street shots that make me admire the way the photographer was ready when the shot presented itself.
btgc
Veteran
I could have written post about "I could have done that" 
Neare
Well-known
The skill of being in the right place at the right time is often more important than the skill of handling your camera. Photographers who believe "I could have done that" often try to understand the technique of how the photo was taken but never appreciate that the photographer was in a certain location or part of an event. Knowing how to take a photo with great skill doesn't allow one to take great photos.
redisburning
Well-known
I mean I can play any Jimi Hendrix song on the guitar but I dont even play the local clubs.
Frankly, Im not a very good guitar player.
Similarly, being able to reproduce an image does not make you a particularly good photographer.
2c
Frankly, Im not a very good guitar player.
Similarly, being able to reproduce an image does not make you a particularly good photographer.
2c
wgerrard
Veteran
Yep.
Heard anyone critique the brush handling skills of, say, Rembrandt or Picasso? It's the result that counts. Being there, prepared to take a picture, is what really counts. Knowing that something is likely to happen is a great start to a good photo.
HCB's water jumping pic, for example.Maybe HCB explained how he came to take that picture. I don't know. But, would it be any less interesting as a photo if HCB had seen that guy doing that jump every time it rained, or if he'd just asked the guy to jump so he could take the picture?
Teuthida
Well-known
I'm a great drip painter. Have sold many in a local gallery.
Do I have any "talent?" Probably a better aesthetic sense than the average guy, yes. does my stuff look like Jackson Pollock's? Yes, it does, actually.
Was Jackson Pollock a genius? Yes, he was.
Am I? No. I'm just a hack who copied him,
Do I have any "talent?" Probably a better aesthetic sense than the average guy, yes. does my stuff look like Jackson Pollock's? Yes, it does, actually.
Was Jackson Pollock a genius? Yes, he was.
Am I? No. I'm just a hack who copied him,
swoop
Well-known
From what I've heard every time I post a picture online, everyone can do what I do better than me.
charjohncarter
Veteran
I go from true B&W experts where I say I could never do that, to modern color photographers saying that would be easy. Sometime I think we are too hard on ourselves. I see images here that I think are great and could stand beside anybodies. But still self doubt is always not too far away in my case.
Paulbe
Well-known
Art is the same way--there has been in the Atlanta airport, since 1980 when the new terminal opened, a series of neon tubes in abstract shapes displayed on the main entrance to the gates.
Just a few small tubes of neon in different colors at each level.
Really nothing spectacular. Just a few neon tubes in a few shapes.
ALWAYS the comment you hear going down the escalator--"that's art? I could have done that!"
Except--a BIG exception--You/I didn't!
HE--the artist, did!
And that's what makes it different--he/she the artist--not me/us--did it first.
Good for them!
Paul
Just a few small tubes of neon in different colors at each level.
Really nothing spectacular. Just a few neon tubes in a few shapes.
ALWAYS the comment you hear going down the escalator--"that's art? I could have done that!"
Except--a BIG exception--You/I didn't!
HE--the artist, did!
And that's what makes it different--he/she the artist--not me/us--did it first.
Good for them!
Paul
charjohncarter
Veteran
My friend (a house and interior painter) was doing some painting for an art exhibition. He decided to enter his painters hat with multi-colored drips, he won his class.
Matus
Well-known
Well, this kind comments often pop when some kind of famous or expensive photograph is being presented that does not really has much to tell in general or to particular viewer (some of Gursky shots would fall here, HCB probably not).
One could discuss to death whether given photo deserved the rating or price, but at the end of the day the main reason for the despise is just plain envy and ego problems. The negative artistic opinion is mostly driven by the first problem and only secondly and thirdly by the "true" badness of the shot or just lack of education or taste on the viewer's side.
Let's be honest - if you see (to you) a non inspiring photo that just sold for high $$$ one often feels like their better vacation photos should be worth the same - well - they are not until bunch of other guys and few galleries with money thinks so. And that is the hard job - to get recognized for your work (no experience on my side).
My personal take? HCB or AA I do not doubt. But Gursky?, Gursky I could do
One could discuss to death whether given photo deserved the rating or price, but at the end of the day the main reason for the despise is just plain envy and ego problems. The negative artistic opinion is mostly driven by the first problem and only secondly and thirdly by the "true" badness of the shot or just lack of education or taste on the viewer's side.
Let's be honest - if you see (to you) a non inspiring photo that just sold for high $$$ one often feels like their better vacation photos should be worth the same - well - they are not until bunch of other guys and few galleries with money thinks so. And that is the hard job - to get recognized for your work (no experience on my side
).My personal take? HCB or AA I do not doubt. But Gursky?, Gursky I could do
swoop
Well-known
Life imitating art?
gns
Well-known
People have been saying, "I could have done that" since at least as far back as R.Mutt, I'm sure. And possibly as far back as Lascaux.
And people have been responding with, "Yea, but you didn't", for probably just as long.
Szarkowski elaborated a little bit on that response on the last page of his book, Looking at Photographs. He said (I'm paraphrasing), "You probably could have done that, but only with a couple of important conditions. First, that you could recognize 'That', since there would have been nothing to guide you or point it out. And second, that you would have considered 'That' worth doing".
Photographs ARE easy (at least the technical part), and people often don't think beyond that when they say anyone could have done it. But anyone who has tried to make good photographs knows that what makes it easy, is also part of what makes it so difficult.
Cheers,
Gary
And people have been responding with, "Yea, but you didn't", for probably just as long.
Szarkowski elaborated a little bit on that response on the last page of his book, Looking at Photographs. He said (I'm paraphrasing), "You probably could have done that, but only with a couple of important conditions. First, that you could recognize 'That', since there would have been nothing to guide you or point it out. And second, that you would have considered 'That' worth doing".
Photographs ARE easy (at least the technical part), and people often don't think beyond that when they say anyone could have done it. But anyone who has tried to make good photographs knows that what makes it easy, is also part of what makes it so difficult.
Cheers,
Gary
SciAggie
Well-known
That's very much what I am driving at. There are always photos in the gallery that I admire because someone sees a great image in the mundane that I walk past daily. There are a few here on the forum that do that regularly and I admire them for their ability to see what most of us miss.
zauhar
Veteran
I thought the Gursky photo that stirred so much discussion was a very interesting shot. If I saw it fill size I might have been really impressed - sort of like when I saw some Monet haystack paintings in person ("so THAT's what the fuss is about!")
As for the huge sum that was paid for it - clearly rich people need to pay more taxes! But if they aren't being taxed, I don't have much to say as to how they throw their money away.
Randy
As for the huge sum that was paid for it - clearly rich people need to pay more taxes! But if they aren't being taxed, I don't have much to say as to how they throw their money away.
Randy
Chris C
Established
I was in the National Gallery at the National museum a couple of weeks ago making the most of the handful of photographs they usually have on display. One of which, this image by Ann Shelton http://collections.tepapa.govt.nz/ObjectDetails.aspx?oid=749244 I was taking in long enough to hear two such comments. One was word for word "I could have done that", the other an equally as flippant "See the one on the left? I took that".
I think what most people fail to realise is that a lot of great photos are the result of years if not decades of thought refinement, dedication and perseverance. Seldom does it have anything to do with knowing how to use a camera. It doesn't take anyone more than a few weeks to master camera control, just like it doesn't take more than a few weeks of swinging a hammer to be able to drive a nail, but that doesn't mean I could go out and build an award winning house tomorrow.
I think what most people fail to realise is that a lot of great photos are the result of years if not decades of thought refinement, dedication and perseverance. Seldom does it have anything to do with knowing how to use a camera. It doesn't take anyone more than a few weeks to master camera control, just like it doesn't take more than a few weeks of swinging a hammer to be able to drive a nail, but that doesn't mean I could go out and build an award winning house tomorrow.
pawel glogowski
Member
I think, that it's not that much important what one can do, but what is he actually doing.
gb hill
Veteran
I'll be the first to say 'I can't do that' but I'll also add this; I don't want to either. I belong to a couple of flickr groups such as "Inspired By So & So" but I don't want to copy them. I mostly joined to see what others are doing. I love being inspired, but I want to be me. No one inspires me any more than Chris Crawford, & I hope to strive to be as near good a photographer as Chris some day but I don't want to try to copy his style. I'm very much interested in shooting the same types of scenes as Chris but I want to do it my own way. Exactally what my way or style means I don't actually know yet. I haven't really buckled down & become serious enough in my photography to judge myself in such a way.
Thank's for starting this thread because the question has fueled my desire to look at myself.
Thank's for starting this thread because the question has fueled my desire to look at myself.