Boring

<p>WOW! (tongue in cheek there) With all things in life there is a season, in my humble opinion. We each have begun a journey full of excitement, watched a sunset, watched a sunrise, (many, many, times), and gazed at the world around us. Many of us in our own artistic or non artistic way try to capture a moment in time. We look for the "new" in many seasons of life and photography. Yet, I am always emotionally pinged at someone's different point of view, their take on a sunrise, flower, etc. The way they express that point of view is exactly the reason I enjoy sometimes even the most non technological, badly composed and badly exposed image. It's about sharing, experiencing and enjoying others visions. Yes, many images are similar, YET, each one tells and shows a little story that if we take the time to process, is marvelous. It's the way photography echos life......Enjoy!</p>

<p>Doug: your point is spot on/ Let me again restate what I see as the issue. Some of those who have been on that journey the longest time and who have learned the most and have the most to share seem to have either left the site, or post less frequently. As a result the ratio of truly inspirational shots has declined (from my very subjective POV). PN is a terrific place to exchange photographic information of all kinds and to share our output. I know in my own case, am more likely to post an image I'm not entirely pleased with, but can't identify specifically why that is to see what others might see that I'm missing.<br>

PN does have that theme posting, which is quite enjoyable. I would like to see it expanded and have a "Take your best shot!" sort of challenge that might pick a boring or frequently trite subject and see how many of us can come up with a fresh approach. When I taught photography way back in the day each week the class would have an assignment something along those lines. It might be an exposure over 10 seconds, or an every day object we all walk by without seeing, etc.</p>

<p>"Boring" is difficult to define cause it's definetly a subjective, personal view.<br>

for me the time spend to find and approach "not boring" or original photos and photographer was shorter, when we still have the rate Aesth/ Original.<br>

So for me there is, like everybody here say, a lot of very good work showed here, but in my concern (my humble opinion) it's harder to discover new talents, original and special tentatives.<br>

that is said I really appreciate all the work made here by Josh and Photo.NET, which a real great place for photography on the net.</p>

<p>To expand a bit on what's boring - I don't think anyone would miss titles if they were disallowed. I'm not advocating that BTW. I have expressed my admiration for the general quality of the pictures on the forums I participate in. Again, they don't bore me. Most of the titles really, really do bore and annoy me - worse than artist statements, even. Both often demean the work and the artist. I use titles myself here sometimes as editorial comment or to add a bit of probably, unnecessary, information regarding a picture. Some of the banalities and pro-forma captions under an image readily comprehendible without text is insulting to the image and the viewer. Does anyone pay much attention to or really value titles? </p>

<p>Alan, agree about titles and captions. I rarely notice them but a lot of people comment on them and, when I do notice them or they're brought to my attention, they don't just bore me, they annoy the hell out of me. I, too, wouldn't advocate banning them. </p>

<p>One thing this thread points out is that many here are invested enough in photography to care about these things, to voice our opinions about them, and to react strongly. I think that's a good thing. Sure, ultimately, we might want to agree to disagree, but it would be awfully "boring" to do so from the beginning. Why not differ and advocate for a point of view. That's what a lot of the best photos do!</p>

<p>Nothing personal John, just think that Ansel would turn in his grave to see some of the things written about him and his thought processes. I think the guy was a great photographer and that his photos pretty much speak for themselves. Relative to other dynamic cities, Milwaukee would pretty much rate as "boring" so we are on the same page there. I don't get bored very often though, being bored usually means lazy. </p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=20462">Josh Root</a><a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Admin" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/admin.gif" alt="" /><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Aug 05, 2011; 02:42 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Josh's analysis is correct. How could it be differently, he knows the dynamics of participation and also has the statistics.</p>

<p>The issue I see is that personal skill development requires personal questioning on the one hand, and diversity in capabilities on the other.</p>

<p>This means that if I want to improve, I need to be aware that I need to improve and question, myself and others. For this purpose I also need "high" examples to confront my work with other work and question what I am doing.</p>

<p>The diversity issue is based on the active participation of "advanced" members who are both examples and "guides" those wanting to improve.</p>

<p>Questioning and diversity are the two sides of the same medal, and they are the driver of learning and improvement of skills.</p>

<p>Questioning and diversity need to exchange. They feed each other.</p>

<p>If this dynamics stops, or slows down, the effect could be an undifferentiated scene, where growing and learning simply stops.</p>

<p>John Ellingson calls it "boredom".</p>

 

<p>You're on a roll Fred!<br>

I'd say the best of anything maybe "sitimulates a point of view". Call it a "take-home experience" to be trite.</p>

<p>Tim: I don't know about that point of view on Ansle. Ansel and I spent a good deal of time together and worked on conservation projects in addition to talking about photography. We corresponded for years. Ansel was very eager to discuss his approach. Sitting around the dinner table with about a dozen people every night in Yosemite and the discussion would run late into the evening we covered a lot of ground. While my observations are obviously my observations, Ansel was very free with his counsel and always available to help with issues and questions that might come up.</p>

<p>Luca: I think you are right on point. Maybe boredom is not as precise a term as I'd like, but it comes close until a better term comes along. Tedium, sameness, lack of originality, all seem to serve a similar purpose.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>could you please croos the border of vanity in your pov on "boring on P.net" and be concrete or i's too difficult ?</p>

<p>I think Josh Root is right, things have changed in the photo world leading to changes in behavior.</p>

<p>I have been on this site for over 10 years, I have definitely changed my habits quite a bit. The main reason I no longer post anything to my portfolio here is simple, copyright infringement. It's hard enough keeping track of the images I already have here, I had to go after three people this year for that reason for a photo lifted off of this site. I posted some images on Flickr a few years back too for my book project, but I have stopped posting there as well. I am probably going to pair all of it down to half of what is up just to make my life easier...</p>

<p>I put marketing on hold for 3 years due to the project I was on, now my wife and I are re-doing everything, the hardware, software, marketing aim and how we do it all. So my personal site will go up in a couple of months, but in terms of what people see, especially in terms of stock, most of it will be behind closed doors. The business I lose to less exposure on the internet has already easily been replaced by clients being happy about knowing I don't slather my images on websites for ego petting and I have a LOT less chasing around to do in terms of copyright infringement. In return, they promote me quite a bit by word of mouth...</p>

<p>Most of the photographers I really look up to don't post images on sites either, in talking to them, they cite the same reasons I do, better ways to get exposure that exposes them to far less photo lifting.</p>

<p>Now, as far as looking at images here, there is just too much on the internet in general now, it is overwhelming and I would much rather spend my time shooting, not being on the computer than perusing the images here, sorry to say that, but I can't lie about it. It seems every single area of interest like climbing, food, pets, computers, cars, all have photo posting sections that are throbbing with activity and opinions on what a good photo is that simply do NOT go outside the scope of that particular site. Add to that there is just way too much photoshop art for my taste and the decision becomes easy to pass on it all and just meet up with friends, have dinners with slideshows, attend photo festivals, all things that are not on the internet.</p>

<p>I post the occasional photo in threads like these, because I DO like to share, but photography is my life, I have to be careful what goes out, who sees it and what I share and they just don't seem to get lifted nearly as much from a thread than they would from a portfolio..</p>

<p>Personally, I think because of the slew of it all on the internet, photography is going to die in a manner of speaking within 10 years or so. The reason being is that it is now just so common that people looking to challenge themselves in artistic ways that are going to be put off by how everyone has a camera and thinks they are a photographer are going to look elsewhere. I already see it happening and I also see the troubling trend on photo websites that the opinion of what actually makes a good photograph is changing too, the bar as Josh puts it being lowered quite a bit with each passing year. I predict photography will continue to increase in popularity for about 10 years, then start to die down....a lot...</p>

<p>Daniel: I hadn't thought of that, but it makes a lot of sense. Since I no longer sell my photographs, I just don't think of it. The digital world of the Internet has made the protection of IP more difficult for everyone from Microsoft on down. I'll have to think about your prediction. I don't know about dying, but is sure is going to change. We have other digital media for examples. The music business sure has evolved. I suspect photography will too. It already has when you think of Youtube and outlets like that. My family posts images to each other on text messages.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Ansel never did any burning or dodging of his images while printing</strong></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>When I read this, I just flashed a vision in my head of Adams with no arms. And no arthritic hands attached to those invisible non existent limbs.</p>

<p>Unless I have misread this statement; this is the most inaccurate statement of Adams I have ever read, John. If read as you say, everything else you posted is in question as to veracity.</p>

<p>Ansel's arms were fine. His hands were quite arthritic late in life. Neither had anything to do with how he did his printing. In order to be able to produce exact duplicate copies of his prints and have his assistants to do the same, he redesigned his enlarger. You have misread the statement -- or I miswrote it. Ansel dispensed with the variables of burning and dodging in the conventional sense by designing his rheostat driven many small light lamp house to produce similar results, but the exact same result time after time.</p>

<p>I am sure his arms were quite fine.</p>

<p>I have seen the videos on YouTube of him extensively dodging and burning his prints with them and many other tools. I have read his books, I own them.</p>

<p>I have The Print, where he extensively shows piece by piece how he dodged and burned his prints. And touched them up with dye and ink, even. How to mount them. How to cut them.</p>

<p>I have also seen the scanned prints of his Library of Congress photos of Manzanar. He donated not only the books, but his negatives, and his prints. The Library has scanned both his prints and his negatives, and you can quite clearly see, even then that he dodged and burned his prints. Anyone can view them, and the see differences.</p>

<p>I am just absolutely incredulous that you would say that Adams did not dodge or burn his prints. He essentially was the GODFATHER of dodging and burning. Like I said, stating something so ABSOLUTELY wrong brings into question the veracity of everything else you anectodally wrote about him.</p>

<p>That is the nicest way that I know of calling someone an out and out liar, John. /shrug.</p>

<p>I guess there is a middle ground here. When I was with Ansel in the late '60s he was very proud of not dodging and burning in and his invention. Certainly he did it like we all did earlier in his career. By the time I knew him most of his prints were made by a series of assistants who worked with him. To overcome the variables and enable others to duplicate his results with his negatives, he rebuilt his enlarger to avoid that variable. I would suggest you look at the dates of the youtube. Clearly I was wrong to state "never." I should have said that in his later years. I am not old enough to have known him in the '40s. I was wrong to make it an absolute statement. In the years I knew Ansel (from '68 until his death) he never dodged or burned a print. His notebook, which you may be able to find a copy of, has all of the rheostat settings for each of his negatives.<br>

I do resent the "liar" characteristic. It is not only untrue, it is unbecoming of the speaker. Richard, the uncalled for insult has no place in civil discourse.</p>

<p>John,</p>

<p>Do you want me to find and post all the voluminous videos available to refute your posts? Anyone can go to YouTube themselves and discover you are wrong.</p>

<p>Do you want me to scan and post the pages of his books that refute your posts? This would be a violation of the TOA of this site, of course. Anyone can buy his books, even eBooks now, showing that you are wrong.</p>

<p>The tale of you running around behind Adams, as he is dragging his 8x10 view camera around the grasses of the Valley of Yosemite,,,,highly highly suspect, John.</p>

<p>Nice fiction. The inaccuracies that you stated(lies), are so profound that it is <strong>absolutely</strong> called for. What is an insult, to all of us readers, is your fictional story.</p>

<p>Richard: Do you want me to scan the letters and cards Ansel and I exchanged over the years?</p>

<div></div>

<p>http://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/manz/item/2001704616/</p>

<p><img src="http://lcweb2.loc.gov/pnp/ppprs/00200/00258r.jpg" alt="" width="496" height="640" /></p>

<p>Scan of Original Print from Adams.</p>

<p><img src="http://lcweb2.loc.gov/pnp/ppprs/00000/00044r.jpg" alt="" width="516" height="640" /></p>

<p>Scan from Adams' donated negative.<br /> From<br /> http://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/manz/item/2001704616/</p>

<p>That is clearly burned.</p>

<p>These images are public domain.</p>

Guess ol' Ansel adopted "Expose To The Right" even before digital.

<p>With all the fighting going on, this thread is certainly getting less boring. The pictures from Adams and postcards are more interesting than many of the other photos posted lately.</p>

Download some of the tiffs of Ansel's shots on that LOC site and see just how much detail he captured on the negative. I just downloaded the 20MB tiff of the image above and I'm blown away by the quality of the scan and level of detail.

<p>

Thanks for the link, Richard.