"I could have taken that"

[xavoy]

I decided I might start sharing my thoughts on photography, and wrote this in response to a comment a friend made about a minimal seascape I took years ago. What are your thoughts? It was hard to write and not come across as cut about my friend not liking the picture - that really isn't the point here. I value all feedback, especially his because he is honest, and especially constructive criticism because that's when I learn the most. On this occasion tho, I felt that perhaps he might get more out of art if his position was challenged. It wasn't at all about convincing him to like my picture so I hope that comes across. What are your thoughts?

P.S - This picture is not the one he commented on, but it isn't dissimilar. This one was shot with a Leica M6. You can see the article and a different postscript on my blog.

--

Most people don't like this kind of photo. When asked why, one friend commented "I could have taken it." This is true, I suppose. It's not an exotic location, it's accessible to anyone living in Sydney. I made conscious decisions about framing and focus, and wouldn't have even bothered taking the picture if the light had been different, but it is true that I didn't require any special gear, and though small sensor smart phones might struggle to achieve a similarly shallow depth of field, a more or less equivalent picture could have been taken with just about any other camera. Load it up into photoshop, convert it to grayscale, boost the contrast, and Bob's your uncle, right?

I suppose that is one way to look at it...

I'm not one to take process or method into account when responding to a photograph or work of art. To me, if it moves me in one way or another, then it is a successful picture. Sometimes the simplest things have the most profound effect. But my friend's comment reminds me of the quote "Modern art = I could have done that + yeah, but you didn't" because not only is it true that someone who claims they could have taken a similar photograph didn't in fact take a similar photograph, what is more important is that without said photograph to prompt them, they probably NEVER would have.

Someone who criticises a work of art for being too basic and easily imitable (which is what is meant when someone says, "I could have taken that") is responding intellectually (and so closing themselves off from a potentially deeper response), and obviously does not understanding the artistic process.

Some people get quite angry about Marcel Duchamp's "Fountain". I realise this is a simplistic example, and somewhat akin to mentioning Hitler to win an argument, but the fact of the matter is that urinals had existed outside of art for a long time, but it took Duchamp to really "see" it. Although he didn't craft the urinal with his bare hands, and buying it and turning it upside down is something any able bodied person could easily have done, it was Duchamp's process as an artist that made real the work of art we now known as "Fountain".

I'm sure I'm not the first person to note a similarity between Duchamp's readymades and photography, but I can imagine it is an unpopular suggestion. Gearheads and geeks will be quick to point out the complexities of accurate exposure, or the painstaking processes a raw image goes through - digital or otherwise - before they put their name to it and share it with the world, but any such arguments directed at me would be preaching to the choir. More than anyone I know I labour over my images. Developing and scanning film, carefully selecting images that show potential, that fit into my various projects and will hopefully suggest to the viewer something of my intended expression, cleaning and rescanning selects in higher resolutions and putting them through a process that is the current evolution of a workflow that's taken years to fine tune, eventually ending up with something that hopefully resembles that which I'd envisaged before I even clicked the shutter. Not to mention often tedious shoot preparations, and the shoot itself, with the framing, exposure, and other compositional decisions made at the time I tripped the shutter.

And yet... Today's technology is such that someone with an iPhone and hipstamatic could sit in the same spot and, given similar weather conditions, create an image in a fraction of a second that could conceivably so closely resemble mine that, when scrolling through an instagram feed, someone could easily mistake it for the original.

But it's not.

The first image came out of a process. Thousands of conscious decisions over many years that came together at that moment to create something very specific. A "readymade" for sure, (without the cliffs and the sea there would be no picture, but that really is a stupid argument, so I won't waste my time on it), but something that was born of a process, a practice, a passion, that has also birthed a body of work with the explicit purpose of expressing something quite specific. The other is a mere copycat.

Does this mean that, of the two near identical pictures, one is better than the other? Not at all. Does this mean that you should like the original just because it was at one point the latest expression born of a process of refinement that began many years before the image was exposed? Not at all. If the picture doesn't move you, it doesn't move you. But if your response is based on the fact that a very smart computer could have replicated the picture just by pointing it at the same place at the same time, you're sitting on the surface of life, and amongst other things, are missing out on the kind of rich and rewarding experiences that only art can provide.

 

[Pherdinand]

Someone who criticises a work of art for being too basic and easily imitable (which is what is meant when someone says, "I could have taken that") is responding intellectually (and so closing themselves off from a potentially deeper response), and obviously does not understanding the artistic process.

i disagree. Two points:
1. You mention, that "responding intellectually" is blocking the viewer to respond deeper. In the meanwhile, if someone reacts/responds non-intellectually and "deeper"(i don't like it! why? because i think it's bad/worthless/ugly/boring - THESE are deeper, non-intellectual, tough reactions), if someone reacts like this - all hell breaks loose because it is not "constructive criticism" and he doesn't explain it so he must be bad willing
In fact your friend responded non-intellectually. "I could have taken that" is, as you also may see it, a reflex reaction when provoked/forced to explain why he doesn't like your image. And, moreover, it's a perfectly valid answer… NOT because it makes art look equal to "reproducible", but because if i
'm not an artist and i think / feel i can do it, then i consider that it is not art. That simple.

2. "obviously does not understand the artistic process"-you fall into the same self-built artist trap (or should i call it cr@p) as many others: if you don't like my stuff and you don't have a perfectly, for me acceptably formulated reason, then you are missing the point / then you don't understand the artistic process / then you don't get what art is
This is also a bad reaction from your side.

Think about it, first and first of all: Maybe he is right.

The fact that you put thought and effort into a pic, and you see appearing exactly what you wanted to capture, does NOT make it art, nor enjoyable/decorative/deep-meaning/... for others.

And yes, maybe after my words above you figured: i kinda agree with your friend . Except i could not have made it myself.

 

[Pherdinand]

Going further through your message. About the process and the "copycat:
What if we turn the story backwards?
Lets say a hipster with a phone camera snaps a shot on that spot, from that angle, puts some instagram effect on it and spreads it all over and you happen to see it. Then you set up your process and make the same picture develop the film, select the bedt one that has potential, rescan it, clean it up, tone it properly, whatever you need to do to make lt look as you envisaged it.
But there was already a similar version of it.
Of course yours might technically/aesthetically be better. Or not.
Did you just make a copycat?

How about the case when you did NOT see the hipster-instagramized-cellphone version and you just happen to have had the same idea, but worked a lot on it with your artistic process.
Did you create a copy? Is your shot a copycat?
Is the one that comes second always a copycat?
Does it even matter which one was made first?

"I could have done that" does not necessarily mean "I could have copied that". As i said above, it can mean "i was there and seen the same, i could have made a pic but i didn't want because it's not worthy of even a cellphone shot and 2 seconds of my time" even WITHOUT knowing/seeing your already made pic.

Maybe ask your friend what he meant by "i could have done that".

The comparison with Marcel Duchamp's stuff is a bit limping.
That stuff is made provocative. Made to generate exactly the reactions that it generated/generates. It's the "piss christ" category. So the kind of "conscious thinking" that went into it is totally different from yours.
It's difficult to do the same with a seascape no matter how much you twist it.
And let's be hones you did not twist it at all.

 

[FrankS]

Responding to the pic you've presented:

I don't think that the limited depth of field works here. LDOF is used to forcefully focus the attention of the viewer where the photographer wants. In your photo, it's just the tips of some bushes beyond the edge of the cliff. You also mention the quality of the light, but in your pic I see no special quality to the lighting.

If I were your friend and you showed me this pic, I would not have just said, "I could have taken that," I would have said, "I could have taken that better."

And I have several similar pics of vegetation on cliffs by the ocean that I prefer.

Sorry to be so blunt. If you find my post offensive, please pm me and I will delete it immediately. I just thought that honesty is the best policy here.

I checked your website and can see many excellent photographs there, but the pic in this thread isn't one of them.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Taking pictures only few going to like isn't easy. If those few are those who spend sometime with photography and art.
I can't take 99+ likes photos for Flickr, but I'm happy with few who understand.

 

[Sparrow]

The original fountain was smashed I believe, but fortunately Duchamp had seventeen copies made ... which sell for good money these days I believe

 

[tunalegs]

I prefer reading critiques where the author is not putting their personal interpretation of the work as the ultimate measure of the work's worth as a piece of art. What I like is a critique where the author has considered what the artist is trying to do with the work and then judged whether or not the work "works".

"How this made me feel" is a worthless critique to anybody but the critic, or people who think and feel exactly as they do. It does not take into proper consideration the intent of the art, or its effect upon people who are not the critic.

Whether or not somebody else could have made the work is irrelevant in most cases. I could imagine it having some relevance in certain scenarios regarding concept art - but most of the time it's going to be beside the point. Somebody who points out that they could have done the same thing is just trying to congratulate themselves for being skilled enough to do something they didn't actually do.

 

[NY_Dan]

In the stock market when someone says I should have bought this or that stock they're greeted with the words, "Woulda, coulda, shoulda." You can't expect everyone to like, dislike, or appreciate your work. There can however be illuminating consensus. Take every comment for what it's worth and move on. Here's 3 from me:

We do the best with what we come across. Some photos have a perceived greater degree of difficulty. Some difficulties are easily visible and others are invisible -- like if you had to hike down a dangerous ravine to get a shot -- the shot might not reflect that. If everyone appreciated/loved every work one produced, what fun would that be? Where would the motivation be to produce for such an audience?

 

[ottluuk]

You have every right to stand by of your (thought and technical) process but you have to allow for the possibility that others are not going to "get it".

The following is harsh but not intended as an insult. Just my honest reactions to the seascape example. Hopefully it's a bit more useful than the usual pat on the back of internet groups.

Personally, from looking at this photo, I can't really deduce much about your thoughts or intentions at the time you took it. There simply isn't much there to hold interest, visually or content wise. Rather than "I could have taken that", I might say "I wouldn't have taken that".

I don't think comparison to Duchamp is valid here, for the reasons Pherdinand mentioned. Your example doesn't come off as deliberately provocative. You could, of course, print it HUGE, frame it in bling-bling gold and slam a price tag of Gurskyan proportions on it – but hopefully that is not the kind of provocation you were thinking of.

You might use these kinds of "empty" images in a sequence to break tension between very intense frames – see Mateusz Sarello's Swell – among the black and white images that start from page 5 you can see a couple of quiet, melancholy views of the sea mixed into a series that is otherwise intense, dynamic, bordering on violent at places.

Let's come back to the process. You can't really draw a clear line where the process of making one photograph starts and the rest of your past life ends, regardless of how simple it might be to push the button. What's really deeper, a three-hour "fine art portrait" session with a paid model or a fuzzy phonecam picture of a loved one, with perhaps a decade of relationship pointing to that seemingly random click?

Where you can draw a line is exactly how much of the process do you reveal to a casual viewer. Do you present photos with process-specific imperfections? Do you present technical data? Do you add a textual intro/narrative or simply hint by using appropriate captions? Do you present your work with additional artifacts or multimedia or, to the contrary, keep the process deliberately obscure? If you are happy with your photographs but feel that people are missing what you're trying to communicate with them, it may be useful to reconsider the context you present your work with.

 

[Hsg]

Photography critique is easy and because of that fact, its useless.

Taking photos according to other people's preference is the surest way to kill the hobby for yourself. Even if those people are very famous photographers.

Photography today has come down to the level of writing, its that common and easy, so the same way that one does not allow people to critique one's journal and personal writings, the same way one must not allow people to critique one's photos. As long as you're happy with your photos, that is the best you can hope for.

 

[maggieo]

Photography critique is easy and because of that fact, its useless.

Like any kind of writing, none of it is easy to do well. Bad writing is useless, except to the writer, who will hopefully learn from his or her mistakes.

Good writing is one of the most valuable things in civilization. A good critique is, first and foremost, good writing.

 

[Aristophanes]

A drone could have taken that.

 

[jljohn]

I think that a viewer must make a connection with an image before the image has artistic value to the viewer. Unfortunately, we far too often supplant real connection with authorial prominence, perceived monetary value, or a perception of the difficulty of the creative process. The correlation of this is that, sometimes, when we see something that is made by someone unknown, or that is of little value, or that seems easy to make, we dismiss it as not art. It is a hard thing to separate a piece's ancillary characteristics or attendant circumstances from the piece itself, but I think that is what must be done, as a first step, is assessing art. It does no good to start with, "This image by Robert Adams..." or "This image sold for $700,000..." or "To create this image the photographer had to..." We should start with the piece--the image in this instance--and if the work speaks to us, then those other factors can bring deeper and greater appreciation. They, in and of themselves, are not markers of art.

In the particular case of this image: I don't know if you are a famous photographer; I don't know if a print of this image would have any value; and even though I suspect that I could have made this image myself (I may not have been inclined to), that is all irrelevant. The image is not banal, but I find it uninteresting--it doesn't speak to me. Here's my attempt to explain, intellectually, why. First, I find the image unbalanced. You've applied the so-called rule of thirds, but in so doing you've left the upper right 4/9ths of the image devoid of interest. It's a bit of an empty grey rectangle. Second, while the shape and leading lines of the foreground are interesting, the background is made up of two fairly defined rectangles with nothing to draw me in. Sadly, the lines of the foreground lead me to an uninteresting background. Third, the tones are compressed. It's all, what, zones 3--7? Fourth, there is nothing to provide a sense of scale. The grass get's me somewhere, but are those dark bushes you've focused on, or are they the tip-tops of large pine trees? Is that a 30' cliff or 300'? I can't tell. (I am reminded of an image by Alan Ross as a good example of this issues: http://alanross.photoshelter.com/ga...l0BrkWSZ6Ls/I0000soGvld7pEKw/C0000dZzCEfz5doo There is a lack of a sense of scale until you notice the cormorants sitting on the rocks in the upper right. Then you realize how large this scene really is. So too with the cows in this image by Wimberley: http://www.jbgfineart.com/ArtBiosNotes/Contemporary/ArtNotesWimberley.htm ) Finally, I find the lack of a depth of field to be be unnecessary and distracting, and the foreground bokeh is unpleasant in this image.

I hope this makes sense, and is this the kind of critique you are wanting from your friend, or is it something altogether different?

 

[maggieo]

When I had a photo featured over at The Online Photographer, one of Mike's points was that sometimes, "I could have taken that" is a good thing.

Have you ever noticed that there's sometimes a narcissistic component to your enjoyment of certain pictures? In that they're ones you wish you'd taken yourself. I believe (or maybe I should use the word "hallucinate" instead of "believe," pace Scott Adams) that I can appreciate all kinds of work—well, most kinds—but I admit I have a special affection (maybe "bias") for work of the kind that I most like to make myself. There's a component of jealousy, almost, in my appreciation of work like that: "I wish I had taken that."

 

[michaelwj]

Looks like I might be the odd one out here.

I like the shot. I grew up in Sydney, and it captures the feeling from some of those cliffs. I like the minimal focus, it draws me in enough without giving too much away. If is was all in focus it would be too literal and I wouldn't have given it a second look.

Photography is one of the interesting arts where the barrier to entry is very low. Unlike sculpture for instance. So yes, like your friend said, they could have taken that. But they didn't. There could be lots of reasons why; they didn't see the image, to they saw it as you did but didn't like it. Meh, I don't care.

Reading the rest of your post though, I couldn't care about the process. Not to be offensive, but it sounds like you are trying to justify your art by saying that you put more effort into it than someone with a phone camera. Don't. You have no need to and it makes you sound like a knob. It is art because you said it was, not because it took you a long time or lots of effort to make.


Good image.

Cheers,
Michael

 

[FrankS]

Looks like I might be the odd one out here.

I like the shot. I grew up in Sydney, and it captures the feeling from some of those cliffs. I like the minimal focus, it draws me in enough without giving too much away. If is was all in focus it would be too literal and I wouldn't have given it a second look.

Photography is one of the interesting arts where the barrier to entry is very low. Unlike sculpture for instance. So yes, like your friend said, they could have taken that. But they didn't. There could be lots of reasons why; they didn't see the image, to they saw it as you did but didn't like it. Meh, I don't care.

Reading the rest of your post though, I couldn't care about the process. Not to be offensive, but it sounds like you are trying to justify your art by saying that you put more effort into it than someone with a phone camera. Don't. You have no need to and it makes you sound like a knob. It is art because you said it was, not because it took you a long time or lots of effort to make.


Good image.

Cheers,
Michael

Nice counter-point, Michael.

 

[xavoy]

Woah, the RFF subscription emails don't seem to be coming through. Sorry I haven't gotten back to this earlier. I'm honoured that my thoughts have stirred up such debate!

i disagree. Two points:
1. You mention, that "responding intellectually" is blocking the viewer to respond deeper. In the meanwhile, if someone reacts/responds non-intellectually and "deeper"(i don't like it! why? because i think it's bad/worthless/ugly/boring - THESE are deeper, non-intellectual, tough reactions), if someone reacts like this - all hell breaks loose because it is not "constructive criticism" and he doesn't explain it so he must be bad willing
In fact your friend responded non-intellectually. "I could have taken that" is, as you also may see it, a reflex reaction when provoked/forced to explain why he doesn't like your image. And, moreover, it's a perfectly valid answer… NOT because it makes art look equal to "reproducible", but because if i
'm not an artist and i think / feel i can do it, then i consider that it is not art. That simple.

Great point. My friend's initial response was not neccesarily an intellectual one. The thought "I could have taken that" might only have occured when he was pushed to justify why he didn't like it. Great point!

2. "obviously does not understand the artistic process"-you fall into the same self-built artist trap (or should i call it cr@p) as many others: if you don't like my stuff and you don't have a perfectly, for me acceptably formulated reason, then you are missing the point / then you don't understand the artistic process / then you don't get what art is
This is also a bad reaction from your side.

Think about it, first and first of all: Maybe he is right.

The fact that you put thought and effort into a pic, and you see appearing exactly what you wanted to capture, does NOT make it art, nor enjoyable/decorative/deep-meaning/... for others.

And yes, maybe after my words above you figured: i kinda agree with your friend . Except i could not have made it myself.

Agree here too (with bolded part specifically, which I think is your point) which is the reason for the last paragraph. Specifically "If the picture doesn't move you, it doesn't move you."

Going further through your message. About the process and the "copycat:
What if we turn the story backwards?
Lets say a hipster with a phone camera snaps a shot on that spot, from that angle, puts some instagram effect on it and spreads it all over and you happen to see it. Then you set up your process and make the same picture develop the film, select the bedt one that has potential, rescan it, clean it up, tone it properly, whatever you need to do to make lt look as you envisaged it.
But there was already a similar version of it.
Of course yours might technically/aesthetically be better. Or not.
Did you just make a copycat?

If I saw an iPhone shot and then went and reproduced it, no matter how complex the process or technically 'better' it is, it is a copycat in my mind.

How about the case when you did NOT see the hipster-instagramized-cellphone version and you just happen to have had the same idea, but worked a lot on it with your artistic process.
Did you create a copy? Is your shot a copycat?
Is the one that comes second always a copycat?
Does it even matter which one was made first?

If someone arrived at a very similar picture independantly of the original, then in my mind, it is not a copy cat. It doesn't matter which comes first, which is why I said "Does this mean that, of the two near identical pictures, one is better than the other? Not at all."

"I could have done that" does not necessarily mean "I could have copied that". As i said above, it can mean "i was there and seen the same, i could have made a pic but i didn't want because it's not worthy of even a cellphone shot and 2 seconds of my time" even WITHOUT knowing/seeing your already made pic.

Maybe ask your friend what he meant by "i could have done that".

The comparison with Marcel Duchamp's stuff is a bit limping.
That stuff is made provocative. Made to generate exactly the reactions that it generated/generates. It's the "piss christ" category. So the kind of "conscious thinking" that went into it is totally different from yours.
It's difficult to do the same with a seascape no matter how much you twist it.
And let's be hones you did not twist it at all.

The comparison to Duchamp was used only to illustrate the fact that anyone could have turned a urinal upside down and called it art, but they didn't. In the same way, anyone could have taken just about any photograph anyone else took, but they didn't (because they didn't see it, didn't want to put the effort in, or even if they just didn't want to). The significance of his work far outweighs a shot of a seascape no matter who took it or how, and I didn't mean to suggest my photograph is at all as groundbreaking or controversial, nor did I intend it to be.

Responding to the pic you've presented:

I don't think that the limited depth of field works here. LDOF is used to forcefully focus the attention of the viewer where the photographer wants. In your photo, it's just the tips of some bushes beyond the edge of the cliff. You also mention the quality of the light, but in your pic I see no special quality to the lighting.

If I were your friend and you showed me this pic, I would not have just said, "I could have taken that," I would have said, "I could have taken that better."

And I have several similar pics of vegetation on cliffs by the ocean that I prefer.

Sorry to be so blunt. If you find my post offensive, please pm me and I will delete it immediately. I just thought that honesty is the best policy here.

I checked your website and can see many excellent photographs there, but the pic in this thread isn't one of them.

No offense taken That's the beauty of photography. I don't like MOST of the photographs I see on the net or elsewhere. But not because "I could have taken that" - because to me, when I say that, I kick myself for NOT seeing it.

Taking pictures only few going to like isn't easy. If those few are those who spend sometime with photography and art.
I can't take 99+ likes photos for Flickr, but I'm happy with few who understand.

I too appreciate the few who understand my photography. Philip Glass quoted a composer whose name I unfortunately forget, but he said that if everyone loves it, he feels he didn't do a good job. If everyone hates it, he feels he didn't do a good job. But if some people love it, and some people hate it, he feels he's done very well

I prefer reading critiques where the author is not putting their personal interpretation of the work as the ultimate measure of the work's worth as a piece of art. What I like is a critique where the author has considered what the artist is trying to do with the work and then judged whether or not the work "works".

"How this made me feel" is a worthless critique to anybody but the critic, or people who think and feel exactly as they do. It does not take into proper consideration the intent of the art, or its effect upon people who are not the critic.

When I first look at a work, I prefer to not know the intention of the artist, and let it move me one way or another. I then like to read into the artist and their intention, then look at the work again. I think that (as you suggested) the degree to which I can immediately relate to a work is dependant on that persons similarity to me (life experiences, world view, depth and breadth of emotional experiences) but I'm always open to seeing something from a different perspective, especially if it's a work or artist that has been recommended to me from someone who knows me well, or who I respect.

On a related note that somewhat supports what I've just said, I have found that if I immediately like and connect with an artist's work, I'll probably like them as a person too. This isn't always the case, and the opposite isn't always true, but has been true for so many people I've met and come to know in various ways.

Whether or not somebody else could have made the work is irrelevant in most cases. I could imagine it having some relevance in certain scenarios regarding concept art - but most of the time it's going to be beside the point. Somebody who points out that they could have done the same thing is just trying to congratulate themselves for being skilled enough to do something they didn't actually do.

I totally agree with that.

In the stock market when someone says I should have bought this or that stock they're greeted with the words, "Woulda, coulda, shoulda." You can't expect everyone to like, dislike, or appreciate your work. There can however be illuminating consensus. Take every comment for what it's worth and move on. Here's 3 from me:

--

We do the best with what we come across. Some photos have a perceived greater degree of difficulty. Some difficulties are easily visible and others are invisible -- like if you had to hike down a dangerous ravine to get a shot -- the shot might not reflect that. If everyone appreciated/loved every work one produced, what fun would that be? Where would the motivation be to produce for such an audience?

"Woulda, coulda, shoulda." I like that haha! I think that part of my response to his "I could have taken that" was based on the fact that there have been shots that for various reasons have been incredibly difficult. Either technically, or in terms of gaining access or permission, or whatever. But personally I will readily throw the shot away if it doesn't move me. I don't expect someone to like a shot just because it was difficult, and by the same token, think it a shallow response if their reason for NOT liking a shot was because it wasn't.

And totally agree, if everyone liked everything, what fun would that be? You'll probably like the quote just above I learned form Philip Glass too.

Great work btw! You're quick on the trigger.

You have every right to stand by of your (thought and technical) process but you have to allow for the possibility that others are not going to "get it".

The following is harsh but not intended as an insult. Just my honest reactions to the seascape example. Hopefully it's a bit more useful than the usual pat on the back of internet groups.

Personally, from looking at this photo, I can't really deduce much about your thoughts or intentions at the time you took it. There simply isn't much there to hold interest, visually or content wise. Rather than "I could have taken that", I might say "I wouldn't have taken that".

Totally agree, but he is a good friend and is quite familiar with my work. Granted tho, like most people here, he hadn't been exposed to too much of this side of my work.

I don't think comparison to Duchamp is valid here, for the reasons Pherdinand mentioned. Your example doesn't come off as deliberately provocative. You could, of course, print it HUGE, frame it in bling-bling gold and slam a price tag of Gurskyan proportions on it – but hopefully that is not the kind of provocation you were thinking of.

Definitely didn't mean to imply my photograph is at all groundbreaking or controversial.

You might use these kinds of "empty" images in a sequence to break tension between very intense frames – see Mateusz Sarello's Swell – among the black and white images that start from page 5 you can see a couple of quiet, melancholy views of the sea mixed into a series that is otherwise intense, dynamic, bordering on violent at places.

I didn't know about Mateusz Sarello's but it is BEAUTIFUL and incredibly touching, and very much akin to where I'm going with this work, tho I'm not breaking it up with violence. The fact that you reffered me to his work in response to my picture actually fills me with confidence. Especially given that you presumably haven't seen any other shots from my series (there are some online, but in obscure places not on my personal sites, and are lacking and incomplete).

Also related to series of photographs. I also posted this article on my tumblr and I have there a P.S about my body of work, and how ironic it was that most of my followers probably haven't seen anything like the example photo because I keep my tumblr blog quite subject specific, and how that's going to change now.

Let's come back to the process. You can't really draw a clear line where the process of making one photograph starts and the rest of your past life ends, regardless of how simple it might be to push the button. What's really deeper, a three-hour "fine art portrait" session with a paid model or a fuzzy phonecam picture of a loved one, with perhaps a decade of relationship pointing to that seemingly random click?

Where you can draw a line is exactly how much of the process do you reveal to a casual viewer. Do you present photos with process-specific imperfections? Do you present technical data? Do you add a textual intro/narrative or simply hint by using appropriate captions? Do you present your work with additional artifacts or multimedia or, to the contrary, keep the process deliberately obscure? If you are happy with your photographs but feel that people are missing what you're trying to communicate with them, it may be useful to reconsider the context you present your work with.

These are great questions. It's a slight aside, but I've spent a long time considering context. I really don't like Instagram and Tumblr, but am so addicted to the instant feedback and occasional home runs. I think that just about every photographers work would be better appreciated in a book. I think sequence is essential, and the only real way to tell a story with pictures. Anyway, got a few things in the works I also know there's more to context than physical medium, and have been experimenting with ways I can include my writing, including projected text, captions, poems. Anyway, great brain fodder. I could go on and on about this, because process is so important and interesting to me, but we'll end up derailing the thread

-- continued in the next post, apparently there is a size limit to these posts haha.

 

[xavoy]

Photography critique is easy and because of that fact, its useless.

Taking photos according to other people's preference is the surest way to kill the hobby for yourself. Even if those people are very famous photographers.

Photography today has come down to the level of writing, its that common and easy, so the same way that one does not allow people to critique one's journal and personal writings, the same way one must not allow people to critique one's photos. As long as you're happy with your photos, that is the best you can hope for.

I don't agree that photography critique is useless, you've just got to get it from the right people I should say here that my friend is far from oblivious to the arts, and from his comment I drew a picture of an ignorant everyman that he really isn't. I did this for the sake of the writing, and because I have even heard people say the same "I could have done that" about the likes or Rothko and Pollock, which to me is just blasphemous. I do think that technical critique of a well practiced photographer is almost laughable tho, especially when - over a body of work - they have made obvious choices to NOT be technically perfect. If you're asking a question tho, then that's a different story.

Totally agree tho that taking photos for other people is a sure way to kill the passion. I would definitely NOT do or recommend that.

And I love the comparison with writing, and it's true that some of my photography is as personal as some of my writing. And I love that photography is so common place. When David Alan Harvey was asked about his thoughts on everyone being a photographer he said he loved it! Why? Because it's a language, and the more people understand it, the easier it will be to communicate. I agree with this.

Like any kind of writing, none of it is easy to do well. Bad writing is useless, except to the writer, who will hopefully learn from his or her mistakes.

Good writing is one of the most valuable things in civilization. A good critique is, first and foremost, good writing.

But "good" is subjective. I LOVE Hemingway and Henry Miller, and think they are at their best when they get on a roll with their never ending sentences. My wife can't stand them for this very reason.

I think that a viewer must make a connection with an image before the image has artistic value to the viewer. Unfortunately, we far too often supplant real connection with authorial prominence, perceived monetary value, or a perception of the difficulty of the creative process. The correlation of this is that, sometimes, when we see something that is made by someone unknown, or that is of little value, or that seems easy to make, we dismiss it as not art. It is a hard thing to separate a piece's ancillary characteristics or attendant circumstances from the piece itself, but I think that is what must be done, as a first step, is assessing art. It does no good to start with, "This image by Robert Adams..." or "This image sold for $700,000..." or "To create this image the photographer had to..." We should start with the piece--the image in this instance--and if the work speaks to us, then those other factors can bring deeper and greater appreciation. They, in and of themselves, are not markers of art.

Totally agree! You'll probably like what I've written above about my ideal way of encountering an artists work (about an initial response not based on what I know about the artist, but being open to a new perspective after you learn something of the artist or intention etc)

In the particular case of this image: I don't know if you are a famous photographer; I don't know if a print of this image would have any value; and even though I suspect that I could have made this image myself (I may not have been inclined to), that is all irrelevant. The image is not banal, but I find it uninteresting--it doesn't speak to me. Here's my attempt to explain, intellectually, why. First, I find the image unbalanced. You've applied the so-called rule of thirds, but in so doing you've left the upper right 4/9ths of the image devoid of interest. It's a bit of an empty grey rectangle. Second, while the shape and leading lines of the foreground are interesting, the background is made up of two fairly defined rectangles with nothing to draw me in. Sadly, the lines of the foreground lead me to an uninteresting background. Third, the tones are compressed. It's all, what, zones 3--7? Fourth, there is nothing to provide a sense of scale. The grass get's me somewhere, but are those dark bushes you've focused on, or are they the tip-tops of large pine trees? Is that a 30' cliff or 300'? I can't tell. (I am reminded of an image by Alan Ross as a good example of this issues: http://alanross.photoshelter.com/ga...l0BrkWSZ6Ls/I0000soGvld7pEKw/C0000dZzCEfz5doo There is a lack of a sense of scale until you notice the cormorants sitting on the rocks in the upper right. Then you realize how large this scene really is. So too with the cows in this image by Wimberley: http://www.jbgfineart.com/ArtBiosNotes/Contemporary/ArtNotesWimberley.htm ) Finally, I find the lack of a depth of field to be be unnecessary and distracting, and the foreground bokeh is unpleasant in this image.

I hope this makes sense, and is this the kind of critique you are wanting from your friend, or is it something altogether different?

I appreciate the critique And this image is definitely it's not for everyone. A lot of what you don't like about it are intentional decisions on my part, some of it less intentional but intuitively, or very in line with my process. I love critiques like this tho, especially when other examples are given, because they make me conscious of the things I might have done intuitively.

What's also valuable about your critique is that it opens up the possibility of a discussion. Why did I choose to use a shallow depth of field? What don't you like about it the shallow depth of field? What was my intention behind it? What did you think I might have been trying to get at? Could it have been better if it wasn't so bottom heavy? Or more balanced at the top? etc etc. I don't want everyone to love my work, I want a discussion with passionate artists.

When I had a photo featured over at The Online Photographer, one of Mike's points was that sometimes, "I could have taken that" is a good thing.

HAH! I have said the exact same thing above. I do occasionally read TOP, but don't remember that quote. Perhaps I was inspired.

Looks like I might be the odd one out here.

I like the shot. I grew up in Sydney, and it captures the feeling from some of those cliffs. I like the minimal focus, it draws me in enough without giving too much away. If is was all in focus it would be too literal and I wouldn't have given it a second look.

Photography is one of the interesting arts where the barrier to entry is very low. Unlike sculpture for instance. So yes, like your friend said, they could have taken that. But they didn't. There could be lots of reasons why; they didn't see the image, to they saw it as you did but didn't like it. Meh, I don't care.

Thank you To me, being told I've captured a feeling is the highest form of praise anyone can give me.

Reading the rest of your post though, I couldn't care about the process. Not to be offensive, but it sounds like you are trying to justify your art by saying that you put more effort into it than someone with a phone camera. Don't. You have no need to and it makes you sound like a knob. It is art because you said it was, not because it took you a long time or lots of effort to make.


Good image.

Cheers,
Michael

And yeah, I agree it's easy to sound like a knob when talking about technical processes and the pains one goes through to get a result, which is why I tried to clarify that in the last paragraph by saying "Does this mean that, of the two near identical pictures, one is better than the other? Not at all. ... If the picture doesn't move you, it doesn't move you." etc. Definitely not my intention to dwell on that.


--

OK I gotta get some work done haha.

Gotta say tho, I'm loving this discussion. I'm very grateful there's still a forum out there where we can talk about PHOTOGRAPHY and not just CAMERAS.

 

[FrankS]

Thank you, OP for your non-defensive response. Thank you for this thread!

 

[thegman]

I think if someone looks at a photo and says 'I could have taken that', it's like just about any other statement made by any other person, it might be true, it might not be.

I took a landscape photo and printed it big, it hangs in my hallway and occasionally gets a favorable comment from visitors. The frame does too though.

However, my girlfriend took almost the same photo on her iPhone, mine was with a 4x5 camera. Mine got printed and her's did not because my scan would print that big easily.

The point is that if someone said to me 'I could have taken that', it's undeniably true, had they been there with a decent camera, then there is no real reason why not.

Not the same for all photos of course, extreme nature or war for example. Or even just not having the reflexes or foresight to see how an ordinary scene to most people would make a good photo.

For some people/photos it's true, and for others it's not.