Internet Experts: Who to listen to?

C.Hudson said:
For aesthetics? Really? So is Martin Parr a genius or not?
Click to expand...

I think for aesthetics it's a bit more complicated as in most cases it's a private matter what people like and what they don't like. However, we can easily see how it gets more difficult once aesthetic taste affects the public realm. Generally we want our museum curators to be informed and educated about the things they are dealing with and we give more weight to their opinion than to that of some random person with little knowledge.

I think it's also important to note that two people who are equally informed on a subject don't necessarily have to come to the same conclusions and hold the same opinions. I think it's less about what opinions people hold and more about how they justify them.
 
Jamie123 said:
. . . I think it's also important to note that two people who are equally informed on a subject don't necessarily have to come to the same conclusions and hold the same opinions. I think it's less about what opinions people hold and more about how they justify them.
Click to expand...
And, indeed, about whether those opinions agree with your own preferences and preconceptions.

Wild generalization coming up: I don't like the Duesseldorf school. Their Neue Sachlichkeit is no longer new or neue (it dates back to the 1920s, long before the Bechers appropriated it) and I'm not convinced that objectivity (Sachlichkeit) means a lot in this context. So: you (or anyone) can then take a look at the Becher's merry men and see if they agree. I do on the other hand like French humanist photography. Differing opinions prompt us to think why we like or dislike things -- and do not hinder us for a moment in pronouncing someone else's opinion worthless if they cannot support it, as you say.

Incidentally, in reply to lynnb, I don't know of any good Willy Ronis books in English, but Derrière l'objectif de Willy Ronis (Google it) is brilliant if you read French.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
And, indeed, about whether those opinions agree with your own preferences and preconceptions.

Wild generalization coming up: I don't like the Duesseldorf school. Their Neue Sachlichkeit is no longer new or neue (it dates back to the 1920s, long before the Bechers appropriated it) and I'm not convinced that objectivity (Sachlichkeit) means a lot in this context. So: you (or anyone) can then take a look at the Becher's merry men and see if they agree. I do on the other hand like French humanist photography. Differing opinions prompt us to think why we like or dislike things -- and do not hinder us for a moment in pronouncing someone else's opinion worthless if they cannot support it, as you say.
Click to expand...

I don't think the Bechers appropriated the Neue Sachlichkeit in the sense that they claimed to have invented it, I think they just worked in the tradition of that movement from the 20's and the 'Neue' part is simply part of the name for it (sort of like the Pont Neuf in Paris is still the Pont Neuf even though it's the oldest bridge in the city). While one could criticize that their work was nothing new, one could also argue that the same thing done at different moments in history makes a wholly different point.
Personally, I have high regard for the Duesseldorf School in the sense that I appreciate the point those artists made at the time. But I must admit that it also am very bored by it and very annoyed by the fact that (what seems like) 80% of the contemporary art photography nowadays is just a reiteration of that kind of work from the 80s and 90s. Sometimes I feel like if I have to look at one more photographic typology I'm going to blow my head off. But that's just me. I'm a big fan of the American New Color Photography/New Topographics work from the 70s and even though this has probably become as much or even more of a cliché as the Duesseldorf School work by now I don't tire of looking at it.

As you say, discussing differing opinions makes us reflect on our own likes and beliefs and I think that's how we develop our taste. It is also how we grow as photographers. If we just state out opinions and then be done with it, never trying to support them with solid arguments, then it's basically just a shouting match that leads nowhere. And this is exactly how recent threads such as the one about Martin Parr have developed.
 
To OP - learn from the old masters composition, learn to see the light instead of measuring it (it might come with time or never, so buy a light meter too). You can learn a lot from looking at paintings instead of looking for internet guru about composition a light too...
my 2 cents.

Regards,

Boris
 
Like life, I will listen to opinions or read widely, and make up my own mind. That is certainly the same for photography, although I would advise staying away from the gearheads and sharpness freaks, or at the very least those of them who do not have the images to back up their minutae-based obsessions.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Frank,

In all fairness, some people ARE morons.

Especially those who think they are the only ones with the key to Life, the Universe and Everything. Including (especially) photography.

And, of course, some things aren't opinion: they're quite easily demonstrable. For example, if you want anything like conventional image quality, and have the faintest idea how to use an exposure meter, the penalties for overexposing conventional B+W film by a stop or two (bigger grain, reduced sharpness) are a lot smaller than the penalties for underexposing by a stop or more.

Likewise, unless you're a really bad photographer, or are engaged in extremely arcane research, it's seldom a good idea to put the fixer in before the developer.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Wise words. It is a popular and dangerous fallacy to believe everything is opinion these days, when as you say, sometimes people are just wrong for factual reasons.
 
Bob Michaels said:
...........................
3) pay good attention to great photographs. Analyze why it is a great photograph. These great photos are found everywhere 24/7 such as in books, magazines, advertising, and news reports. Occasionally you will find a great photo in a photo specific publication but this is an incredibly small portion of the good photos out there.
Click to expand...

I found some really great photos in a Florida business magazine a few days ago while researching a subject I need to go photograph. The photos seemed to have depth in layers, each contributing something.

The photographer? Burk Uzzle. Now go up a post and read PKR's post about HCB's advice to Burk Uzzle.

FWIW: I have seen Burk Uzzle's exhibit "Family Named Spot" and own the book.
 
There are two types of blogs: those which give opinions and those which give technical advise.

The first are all by definition correct. An opinion is an opinion, you might not share it but in principle it cannot be wrong. If Kirk Tuck tells you he finds Sony A77's EVF great and you don't like it, his opinion is still that he likes it even if you don't. After a while you might follow a forum and find that you agree most of the times with a certain blogger and don't agree with another one and then you might trust the first for your decisions (like if you plan to buy an A77).

The technical forums about light, developing, building stuff don't need to be believed, you can try the suggestions which seem right to you and if they work for you all the best, otherwise...well you tried and you know you don't like them. I find that usually most people posting Dev Charts are usually quite correct for some reason...

GLF
 
Ooooh, and you are from Canada. I forgot to say sorry for my oversimplified classification of blogs and...sorry for falling into stereotypes... ;^)

I gave a quick look, plan to look more but: may I ask where is the rd1+35+there+be+demons.jpg building? It looks familiar to me but maybe it is just its style.

GLF
 
giellaleafapmu said:
Ooooh, and you are from Canada. I forgot to say sorry for my oversimplified classification of blogs and...sorry for falling into stereotypes... ;^)

I gave a quick look, plan to look more but: may I ask where is the rd1+35+there+be+demons.jpg building? It looks familiar to me but maybe it is just its style.

GLF
Click to expand...

it's a building on the university of alberta campus...not sure exactly what the name of it is though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom