Exdsc
Well-known
But then the cynical irony of the article would be lost if instead of suck it used other words such as, terrible, mediocre, uninteresting, soul deadening etc.
Why Your Pictures Suck
- Thread starter ironhorse
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 98
- Views 9K
But then the cynical irony of the article would be lost if instead of suck it used other words such as, terrible, mediocre, uninteresting, soul deadening etc.
Sparrow
Veteran
nor mine ... that's why I didn't bother reading the article
Jamie123
Veteran
I'm not an American (or native English speaker) but my guess would be that it's not used as an oxymoron in this way but more likely as a metonymy with a homophobic context.
Sparrow
Veteran
... yes but the British taking the piss is literal ... it's a reference to shipping urine from London to Whitby in the 17 century, and has been a mild rebuke for someone being untruthful ever since
Jamie123
Veteran
Not quite. It would be literal if somethngliterally sucked (e.g. like a vacuum cleaner). I was classifying it as a metonym because if you call someone a c***sucker you're just picking out a single activity that stands for 'gayness' overall. Anyways, I might still be wrong because even if you use it as a metonym in this way, you're still just using 'gayness' metaphorically for badness.
As for the varying uses of "piss", when I live in the UK the most common use of the word I encountered was "getting pissed" as in "getting drunk". 🙂
Sparrow
Veteran
... that's why I never use suck I also assumed it was homophobic or misogynistic in the US context
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Same here. But do you remember the advertisement for vacuum cleaners which appeared on hoardings (US: billboards) in the UK for some time in (I think) the 1980s? "Nothing sucks like an Electrolux."
Cheers,
R.
jsrockit
Moderator
telenous
Well-known
I'm not a native speaker either. Perhaps I've clocked quite a few hours as a kid before the tv watching US films and shows but the word 'sucks' conjures benign images e.g. Walter Matthau or Woody Allen being ever so slightly profane and always to comedic effect. In the article it's used in order to nuance the discussion in this tongue-in-cheek direction, as well as establish a certain informal rapport with the reader. This is all so very phatic of course 😀. For some reason profanity in British English seems to me more hard hitting than in American English. But that's maybe because I've lived for many years in the UK and the culture is familiar to me esp. compared to the US one. I guess to really get the meaning of a word you have to have hands-on experience of its use in a culture.
.
.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
The key is: Be honest with yourself.
If you are truly happy shooting photos of your cats and flowers (I *like* to shoot flowers, but not cat), then apologize to no one and keep shooting.
But if you have always wanted to improve, you have to do what it takes to improve, no one else would or could do it for you.
Photoshop or not, film or digital, street vs staged, people vs things, family or non-family, which camera to use, all those are choices that affect the outcome, but they are by no mean the essence.
So decide first, do you want to become better or are you happy with what you are creating now? The answer to this question will help you in either case.
The article is not useful as a reminder. But apparently the author never try to properly use the flickr search engine. Which is quite sad because he is missing a lot of wonderful images.
If you are truly happy shooting photos of your cats and flowers (I *like* to shoot flowers, but not cat), then apologize to no one and keep shooting.
But if you have always wanted to improve, you have to do what it takes to improve, no one else would or could do it for you.
Photoshop or not, film or digital, street vs staged, people vs things, family or non-family, which camera to use, all those are choices that affect the outcome, but they are by no mean the essence.
So decide first, do you want to become better or are you happy with what you are creating now? The answer to this question will help you in either case.
The article is not useful as a reminder. But apparently the author never try to properly use the flickr search engine. Which is quite sad because he is missing a lot of wonderful images.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
Fairy snuff. However, can you define better?
dbarnes
Well-known
My version:
Know whether you're a shooter or a collector. If you're a shooter, go out and shoot.
Shoot fearlessly. Edit ruthlessly.
The first 10,000 frames don't count. If digital, make that 100,000.
Shoot and edit lots! Experts say you need to invest 10,000 hours in anything to have a chance at becoming really great at it.
Photos you *almost* got make good memories, but bad photos and worse conversation.
If the subject/moment/light/perspective isn't there in your image, don't pretend that it is.
F8 and be there.
Know whether you're a shooter or a collector. If you're a shooter, go out and shoot.
Shoot fearlessly. Edit ruthlessly.
The first 10,000 frames don't count. If digital, make that 100,000.
Shoot and edit lots! Experts say you need to invest 10,000 hours in anything to have a chance at becoming really great at it.
Photos you *almost* got make good memories, but bad photos and worse conversation.
If the subject/moment/light/perspective isn't there in your image, don't pretend that it is.
F8 and be there.
Jamie123
Veteran
Roger Hicks
Veteran
No they don't. The whole 10,000 hours thing is a fantasy that has gained widespread currency in the last (very) few years after being popularized by Malcolm Gladwell. It's basically drivel that starts with an arbitrary number that people want to believe. Here's just one piece debunking this nonsense: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20121114-gladwells-10000-hour-rule-myth
Cheers,
R.
Ranchu
Veteran
A person could spend their entire life trying to improve their photos, apparently what he's suggesting. I think Ibarionex has a small mind, and a small mouth.
I love how you guys nailed Gladwell to the wall.
“I’m necessarily parasitic in a way. I have done well as a parasite. But I’m still a parasite.” Malcolm Gladwell
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012...of-americas-most-successful-propagandist.html
I love how you guys nailed Gladwell to the wall.
“I’m necessarily parasitic in a way. I have done well as a parasite. But I’m still a parasite.” Malcolm Gladwell
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012...of-americas-most-successful-propagandist.html
dbarnes
Well-known
@Roger and @Jamie-- Interesting analysis there of the 10,000 hour rule. It notes that how long it takes to become a peak practitioner of an art or craft depends not just on how much you practice, but on your native skills, on the kind of practice you do and on how many competitors there are. But the bottom line is, quantification or no, practice makes perfect.
Boris Stupak
Well-known
I know people who have become top echelon photographers the first day they ever picked up a camera.
This goes back to the constantly debated idea that you either have the "eye" or you don't. 100,000 hours aren't going to make you better or worse.
You also have to have the ability to self-edit, which is very rare.
To be good you need the ability to tell good from bad. Very few people have this, especially in regard to themselves.
This goes back to the constantly debated idea that you either have the "eye" or you don't. 100,000 hours aren't going to make you better or worse.
You also have to have the ability to self-edit, which is very rare.
To be good you need the ability to tell good from bad. Very few people have this, especially in regard to themselves.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
There is the part of "better" that is subjective.
With this part, my definition won't necessarily be the same as yours.
But there is an objective part in becoming "better" also:
1. Better consistency. The ratio of pictures that you like is increasing compared to the ones you don't.
2. Better technically. You have developed a process that works for you (darkroom printing, photoshop, whatever).
3. Better visually. Your pictures are way more interesting compared to those from the past.
4. Maybe others...
Jamie123
Veteran
Sure but that's just a platitude. Everybody knows that one can improve a skill by practicing. The only thing that was even remotely interesting about Gladwell's "theory" was the 10'000 hour figure.
Sparrow
Veteran
That link is blocked for me as ...
"We're sorry but this site is not accessible from the UK as it is part of our international service and is not funded by the licence fee. It is run commercially by BBC Worldwide, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BBC, the profits made from it go back to BBC"
... the world has gone mad
Similar threads
