Why do people post technically awful photos?

Charles, how so?

I think Charles pretty much makes the point that Jason Everitt and I have made. Lack of interest in the craft required to make a great photograph...

"You could at least increase the contrast on your black and white work. They are flat."

 

Thanks for your input. For reasons which are not quite clear to even myself I want them to look that way. If you look in my PN portfolio you'll see the older images towards the bottom of the page are more contrasty.

If it offends you, Jamie, I suggest that you never look at any internet photo galleries again.

BTW, most of us do NOT have photoshop as it is an expensive program to get into. Are

you suggesting that we go to a bittorrent and download illegally?

 

The real difference between a pro and and amateur is that a pro takes 20 rolls of film and

only uses 2 frames or something. Some amateurs like to use them all. And if they do

badly, they get comments from others and improve. We all have to start from somewhere.

I aint an a good photographer, but I'm still entitled to post photos. They may suck, but at

least people can tell me how to get better.

I give much more of a sh*t about how my prints look than my

internet scans do- web browser compressions are a necessary

evil and rarely do a photo justice. That's a pretty high road you're

taking Jamie, I've seen you get stuff wrong in the past.

Tom, the difference between an indifferent web image and a great web image is huge. Obscuring that difference in technical details does nobody any good, and, if people listened, would only increase the number of bad images here.

It would be nice if someone wrote a few guidelines to make our online posted pix look better. Does a particular sharpening level work better for these small photos? Do they need a little extra contrast to look better onscreen? What about saturation? Tone it down or pump it up?

 

All from the viewpoint of posting small pix on photo.net. Sure, there's a lot of craft involved in post-processing digital image files to get them to print really well, but presumably some basics could be applied to every pic that makes it onto this particular (i.e. photo.net's) format.

I tend to agree with Jamie, but maybe for different reasons. My beef is with the talented

photographers who intentionally post poor photos. Perhaps one of the best examples is

grant. He occasionally posts some of the best photos I have ever seen on photo.net so I

know he is capable of producing top-notch work. More often, however, he posts

soot-and-whitewash black & white photos that are so bad that it is almost painful to look

at them. They are a waste of bandwidth and, frankly, a waste of time. Just to forestall the

usual flaming when I offer this type of post, I do not choose to post any of my own

thousands of photos and that is my own business, so save your breath. I am immune to

your insults. Just think of me as a more recent version of Jay (although not nearly as

smart).

<I>It would be nice if someone wrote a few guidelines to make our online posted pix look

better.</I><P>

 

On the surface a nice idea, but, it's the attention to post-processing that adds (and

differentiates) greatly to some photog's signature. Jeff, Ed, and Balaji come to mind, there

are others as well. So a universal set of guidelines is probably not the answer. However,

there is a minimum set of operations that can be done, usually in less than 60 seconds,

that would help many. <P>

 

But, if a photog's not that fussy to begin with....

The info is all over the web, a simple google of 'photoshop tips and tricks' will turn up thousands of tutorials.

 

At the same time I think the people who do the extra PS work are the ones that would do the extra darkroom work.

 

Print vs. JPG...pretty lame excuse, it's still looking at something that counts.

Jim, not entirely true (that you dont post pics)....

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/big-image?bboard_upload_id=15405584">click here</a>

 

.....

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/image?bboard_upload_id=15419584">click here</a>

 

.....

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/uploaded-file?bboard_upload_id=15420584">click here</a>

......

 

And very nice too in my opinion.

The Chapel, Pomfret School picture is very nice and I think you should post more.

Ah, come on. This is the Leica forum, not the Leica Gallery. People of different abilities do and should participate. Enjoy the good photos (there are many) and ignore the ones you don't like.

 

I'd point out that some of the "bad" photographers on this site add value in other ways -- some are good writers, interesting people, thoughtful critics, whatever.

 

If you think you deserve superior photography, ask yourself why you're hanging around here. We all know that the successful photographers of this world have access to more rarified company; if you're spending significant time on photo.net, it's self-delusion to think you're entitled to better.

jim , youre just clueless, its too bad...

what is superior photography?

superior photography is impossible.

There is always someone who is better

There is always someone who is worse

I don't disagree with you Jeff, I just personally don't see the point

spending unecessary time on an image I may never print, but

wish to add to a w/nw. If it's one I like however I spend as much

time as I need to on the file to get what I'm trying to show across

in whatever way I wish to show it (Inkjet print, website, quicktime

slide show, whatever). I suspect your approach is much more

disciplined than mine.I'm not even entirely disagreeing with

Jamie, either- I'm just not sure of the point of the post. A bigger

fish to fry might be why is the forum so photographically

directionless right now? I see quite a few W/NW recently that feel

like many of the (able, and long term) participants are artistically

whacking off. In my own opinion the best it ever was round here

for the work shown was when we had the competitions Travis

organised. Even the truly talented tried their best - and everybody

won. 2:20am in freezing Berlin kids, over and out.

"However, there is a minimum set of operations that can be done, usually in less than 60 seconds, that would help many. But, if a photog's not that fussy to begin with...."

 

Brad yes. it's only a matter of interest and care in one's work.

 

I understand Jamie's question. I know him personally and some of his post shouldn't be inferred the way it has. I think he just wonders why you wouldn't bring them to work looking like that, but they get posted in a photo forum as such.

 

It's easy to find sites that you can adjust your brightness and contrast to and get it really close. as Brad said, it's a matter of having them be the best they can be. The most sharing some of do with our images is here in this forum, shot on really expensive equipment, so i don't get it either I'm affraid. Just like printing wet, it's learning and being intrigued and striving for excellence.

i agree...and heres one for jim

<br>

<br>

<img src="http://www.streetzen.net/nyc/fish4.jpg">

Jim, is the chapel photo digital?

Don?t admire proficiency, it can become monotonous. Post your seriously green color cast photos; I for one enjoy the creative diversity that unabashed amateur photography contributes to this forum.

Peter, I think Jamie has already elected himself to the task of judging what should make the grade and what should not.

 

Before his message gets 'watered down' or re-interpreted lets remind ourselves of the key phrases...

 

"...yet this forum is regularly graced with some of the technically worst looking images imaginable."

 

and

 

"...Horrible color, over exposed, under exposed. Contrast flat as pancake, miserable looking things."

 

This is strong stuff and is not to be argued with.

 

Look at Jamie's work and learn what we should be doing right. As I am one of the lesser mortals on the Leica Forum 'foodchain' I feel rightly humbled.

I agree with Beau on this. This post and some of the responses has me feeling cold about posting any pics to this forum. The only computer I have at my disposal is a laptop and I was thinking about getting some of my shots put onto a cd to just upload. With my laptop and the crappy screen on it, I can't accurately judge contrast much and exposure can only really be guessed at (If I shot color that would be another issue), so now I guess every shot I will upload I will have to deal with a few people complaining about how technically crappy the scan is. BTW, when I am a very skilled darkroom printer and I can print a very good image. If you are going to judge these pics on this forum in a technical fashion, should't emphasis be on composition and subject, not on contrast and color, which are monitor specific.

I believe that the true technical measure of a photograph is with a print and viewing it with your own eyes. I then can decide whether the photographer gives a hoot about their photography.

"As I am one of the lesser mortals on the Leica Forum 'foodchain' I feel rightly humbled."

 

So this is how you feel about yourself, Trevor? Poor man.