Why do people post technically awful photos?

Discussion in 'Leica and Rangefinders' started by ________|1, Nov 21, 2004.

  1. You've all seen them. Horrible color, over exposed, under exposed.
    Contrast flat as pancake, miserable looking things you'd complain to
    a cheap photofinisher about--but somehow feel perfectly free to post
    in an international photography forum. Why? You have access to a
    computer, obviously. Image editing software is freely available. Many
    here are well heeled enough to buy a full-bore registered version of
    Photoshop, yet this forum is regularly graced with some of the
    technically worst looking images imaginable. What's it all about?
  2. jamie, apparently most of the users of photo-net are amatuers and thats cool because they have the oppurtunity to be schooled in basic image making techniques and post photos because they can, most professionals dont post images on random photo sites.
  3. many people unfortunately regard post-processing as either "unpure"(BS) or don't consider it at all..
    Many of these same people will nitpick over the smallest differences in lens qualities, yet ignore the one of the most fundamental areas in creating an image, post-processing, which is 1000000X more important than whether you have a Summilux, Summicron, Nikkor, Canon etc..

    Oh well, if they want to continue doing that, it's their choice...
  4. ...and Jamie, if you are pointing to my last posted pic, I had to do a lot of postprocessing to save this photo...to me its the composition/content that comes first than anything else.
  5. It could be your monitor. Try turning it off.
  6. Simple question: who says these pictures are over or under exposed or have horrible colour?

    It's all in the eye of the beholder and it's entirely possible that others might feel the same way about your pictures.......
  7. Don't forget to include the people who gaussian blurs or despeckle their image to death to make up for the lack of impact their image contains.
  8. I think in many cases the person who captures the image wants to share the experience of
    that moment. I know that there have been countless times in my life when I have been to
    an amazing place or had an incredible experience that I wished I could capture (or capture
    better), but couldn't. I guess I just look at it this way: even if you are not able to craft a
    story like Nabokov or Salinger, that doesn't prevent you from telling stories does it? I think
    a lot of people just want to share what they have seen -- something that has meaning to
    them, but perhaps they have not the skill or good fortune to be able to reproduce it as
    they saw it at the time. I know I am certainly guilty of this...<P>But at the same time, I do
    find myself questioning why some photos appear here. I guess I don't really pay it too
    much mind though. It's like skiiing -- on the same mountain, and at times even on the
    same trail you will see people who are incredible and people who can barely stay up.
    Usually after enough effort and practice the people who can't stand up learn to make their
    way down the harder trails, even if not as prettily as people with natural ability.
  9. In "Charotts of the Gods" the old coach tells the young runner, "I can't put in what God left out".

    Photoshop is an incrediable tool and can do wonderful things but it can't put in what the photographer or the camera left behind.

    If the information is there it can often bring it out. But blown highlights or blocked shadows where the information just isn't there Photoshop can't help.

    That is why I still use film. It captures more information. Most of the time it captures more than is needed or even desireable for the artistic purpose but it is there.

    If I want to do a drum scan or fiddle about in the darkroom to retreve it I can.
  10. Jamie, good point, but as someone who posts mostly colour pics I have to assume your accusation includes me amongst 'people'.

    I will not defend my attempts as I am not a pro like yourself. I have only recently started using PS 7 and I am still getting used to it and the learning curve is steep.

    That is my problem.

    Your problem now is that you have to post technically perfect photographs here, forever, as you have set yourself up as the arbiter of technical ability for all the rest of us.

    Good luck.
  11. Can I suggest Jamie J 'masterclasses' or tutorials for the rest of us poor benighted saps who just haven't got it yet?
  12. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    but it can't put in what the photographer or the camera left behind.
    That isn't the problem here. Some people post images from digital originals that have been properly processed. Some people post images from inexpensive scanners that have been properly processed.
    I think the problem is that there are quite a few people who, and some have said this, think that a drugstore print or a quickie scan is all you need to do if you have good equipment. There aren't that many people here who have learned to print in the darkroom or taken a good course in Photoshop because if you can afford the camera gear, why would you bother with that? It's a lack of interest in craft, and a corresponding attitude about it. I've seen scans of prints that make it obvious that it's not about what's been "left behind." It's a lack of concern about the craft that goes into making a great photograph, regardless of the original source material.
    Making remarks about someone giving a "masterclass" only reinforce this attitude. It's not that hard in most parts of the world to take a basic photography class and learn how to properly print, in the darkroom or the digital world, something that takes advantage of what is in the raw image. There are online resources also, although nothing beats a good, real education.
  13. The basics of color balance density/contrast control and are pretty simple, there's no need for master classes. The information is freely available online. In many cases just Image> Adjustments> Auto color would at least bring some of these images within reason. Often times the Auto levels/contrast/color adjustments are a better jumping off for further adjustment than the original file, sometimes not though. Luminous Landscape has a tutorial section; one is called "Instant Photoshop". That, and the tutorial on Curves, will pretty much sort out the majority of problems. I'm not trying to insult people here, although in the tradition of the Leica Forum--if you are that's ok too. ;-)
  14. I agree with Jeff. If one doesn't take the time to learn their craft how can they be sure of what they capture in their cameras? Is it a haphazard combination of variables that finally come together to make a good image? Or is a fine carftsman that puts the variables in his own order to create a fine image?

    Anyone who has seen my work knows that my style is not the "Leica Style" since my photos almost never include people, with the exception of portraits, however I can appreciate a top quality street photo or documentary photo. I also disagree with the content first arguement. Content and craft together make a good photograph, neither can stand alone. HCB said that content counted first but then again he was already quite proficient in craft, it came to him with out much thought.
  15. I would rather say that HCB had master printers at his disposal.
  16. hcb is just one of many....there are many photographers who print their own work...
  17. I spent 40 + years in a darkroom and know when an image is right. Many new people do not. I have a new monitor and the printed pics match exactly. I send them to my computer at work and they look like Holga pics.

    The instructions that came with my Minolta 5400 are marginal. I have finally managed to get a pretty good scan that prints correctly with little or no manipulation. Without darkroom experience, it would be difficult to learn photshop on your own.

    I personally do not think color management is the answer. One of the main reasons I purchased an Epson printer was the black ink only setting and the ability to manually put color, density, and contrast correstion between the monitor and printer. So far I found it unnecessary, but what if. I refuse to start fancy profiles etc.

    So there is a whole list of reason why you screen image may look bad.
  18. BTW, I do not find so many bad pictures posted.
  19. Some people use digital as their main medium, others use it incidentally to post pictures. They may have perfect pictures on paper, be very talented that way, and have a hard time getting them scanned and posted right.

    In my case, I have a monitor that is half whacked, and makes things look too dark (and can't be adjusted any farther)- so I can tweak pictures to look great here at my house, and see them on my work computer, and they're all washed out.
  20. I don't know Jamie, why do you post technically bad photos? You could at least increase the contrast on your black and white work. They are flat.

    What is the saying about casting the first stone. I would be very careful to be above reproach before looking down on others or their work. This forum is a place to share work and ideas. You should be more tolerant of different levels of skill and experience especially since this is an amateur site.
  21. I am not a very good photographer. Bad eye for composition, marginal darkroom skills, no knowledge of digital manipulation (yet).

    I have a Leica because I am going to own some kind of camera, and I like the build and optical quality. Sometimes my snaps might be a little better because of it, but probably not too often. I know that my stuff would never measure up to 95% of what gets posted here, and it doesn't bother me at all. I do find many of the posts here informative and useful and it helps me improve in this as a hobby. If I post a "technically awful" photo and someone calls it that, no problem. I'll keep trying and maybe I'll get better at it.
  22. The issue here is not the skill or experience of the photographer, but the fact that many of them believe because they shoot (for example) Kodachrome with an M6 with a 'Cron, that the printing or digital process is irrelevant compared to what they used as equipment.

    Contrary to what Ronald said, learning Photoshop is not as difficult as many say. Sure there is a somewhat steep learning curve at the beginning, but once you get over the initial hump, there's a amazing variety of features available at your disposal. All it takes is a small amount of effort to get started in post-processing, and you'll quickly find that your photographic world has greatly expanded. We are all in a constant process of learning, experiencing, re-learning when it comes to photography, choosing to ignore a very important aspect will only hinder one in expressing themselves through their photos.
  23. "You've all seen them. Horrible color, over exposed, under exposed."

    Jaimie, who do you think subsidises your film? The vast majority of digital film readers, cameras, film, accessories, paint, canvas, brushes, etc. are in the hands of rank amatures. They deserve to be patronised and encouraged to consume until they choke, if only out of self interest. Besides you have to produce crap before you learn anything and perhaps sharing is a small step down that road.
  24. It depends on whether your hobby is photography or electronics.
  25. ...who do you think subsidises your film?
    What does this have to do with anything? Some people give a sh*t while others don't.
  26. Charles, how so?
  27. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    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...
  28. "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.
  29. 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.
  30. 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.
  31. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    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.
  32. 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.
  33. 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
  34. It would be nice if someone wrote a few guidelines to make our online posted pix look better.
    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.
    But, if a photog's not that fussy to begin with....
  35. 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.
  36. The Chapel, Pomfret School picture is very nice and I think you should post more.
  37. 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.
  38. jim , youre just clueless, its too bad...
  39. what is superior photography?
  40. superior photography is impossible.
    There is always someone who is better
    There is always someone who is worse
  41. 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.
  42. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    "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.
  43. i agree...and heres one for jim
    <img src="http://www.streetzen.net/nyc/fish4.jpg">
  44. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    Jim, is the chapel photo digital?
  45. 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.
  46. 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."


    "...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.
  47. rj


    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.
  48. rj


    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.
  49. "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.
  50. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    I believe that the true technical measure of a photograph is with a print and viewing it with your own eyes
    From prior discussions, it appears that many of the people here get machine prints. Are those the prints you're going to base your judgements on?
  51. Yes Jamie, I merely "creepeth and crawleth" in the shadows cast by the beacon of your overwhelming technical brilliance.

    I am sure we will all now be watching your work very closely for inspiration and leadership at the cutting edge of web photo presentation.

    I certainly will.
  52. grant: perhaps it would be better for me to say that your typical subject matter is alien to
    my experience; thus, it does not resonate with me. If it floats your boat and your audience
    likes it, I say go for it.

    eric: I have been doing a lot of digital work during the last 18 months. I'm not certain
    (because I didn't check for any EXIF data) but the chapel shot was probably done with a
    Leica Digilux 1, although I also occasionally use a Nikon Coolpix 4100.
  53. gotta love the cynical attitudes of pnet... :D
  54. jim, thanx for your blessing
  55. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    Jim, it doesn't look like a Nikon shot.
  56. rj


    Jeff, I'm not judging any but my own, done in my darkroom, shot on black and white film, mostly printed on fiber. I'm not the one constantly droning on about the technical merits of dust particles and color on a web forum. Seems to me grant and you and now Jamie do that. It would seem to me that the only thing you can truly complain about on the photos uploaded to this forum is the composition and subject matter choice. And to answer your question about mini lab prints. If I had them in my hands given to me by the photographer, then yes, I would probably tell them that they should try to get either a pro lab to print them or do it themselves to see if they could get a better print than the ones I am holding.
  57. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

  58. I think it's to be expected there will be differing quality of work,
    given that some people have made photos for 1 year and others
    for 30. That doesn't mean this topic should be dismissed. The
    way I print my own work has changed from looking at photos

    Perhaps people unsure of themselves should feel free more
    often to post threads asking what to look for as alternatives to
    their initial effort, and the method in which it is achieved. Call it
    "Technical Critique".

    It's true I think that the highest inspiration in photography is
    probably seen when looking at a paper print, but the fact that it's
    a good print on paper has nothing to do with what it lacks when
    posted on the net. If it doesn't work on the net and you know it,
    don't post it. I've seen pretty good photographers even- right
    here- attempt to give verbal assistance to a photograph that has
    problems communicating on its own for whatever reason. Kind
    of silly. It's a visual medium.

    Monitor quality and calibration is an issue too that shouldn't be
  59. "As I am one of the lesser mortals on the Leica Forum 'foodchain' I feel rightly humbled."

    Nothing could be further from the truth and you know it, Trevor. Your regular one man expositions featuring adventuresome walks to the seaside and various cathedrals are avidly acclaimed by a host of members on this list. Your gaudy, psychedelic renditions are held in the highest esteem. No rosebush is safe with you on the loose. The "technical" proficiency of your work has never been in question here.
  60. Well, Jamie J. "No rosebush is safe"--that's pretty funny.

    Still, in the way you posed your question, you have put yourself on a very high horse. What did you expect from this post? Some people immediately thought they were the culprits and come out making excuses.Ridiculous. This is Photo.net, not a New York art gallery. Anyone CAN post, and will.

    I personally know of a couple of talented beginners who are shy about showing anything here, next to the grants, balajis, etc., and you just pushed their heads back into their shells.

    You have a beef about an individual picture? Speak up. Most will appreciate it if you say something meaninful in the beefing.

    If the esthetics of their pix weren't so glaringly superior, some would say that grant & Travis were posting "grainy, unfocussed darkened" images. And Ed McBride doesn't even like the esthetics; his prerogative.

    The Picture of the Week here on PN is usually a technical marvel, well composed and reproduced to the highest standards possible on a screen.
    If that were what made up the content of this forum, I'd only visit it when too much caffeine was keeping me awake at night. KMart could buy some of them and have their own line of calendars.
  61. "What did you expect from this post?"

    Oh, just a lot of hot air. No worries. I do hope your talented amateur friends post a few shots. I'm a amateur myself.
  62. wait a minute....what does this post have to do with Leica?
  63. it has to do with bad photos...
  64. Jamie-- I, too, have lamented the poor quality of so many photos posted here. From some of the attitudes, I've concluded that it happens because some -- only some -- Leica owners believe that spending huge money on equipment is sufficient to produce good photos, and they neglect to do the hard work of learning photography -- both the technical skills and the ability to see.

    A couple of the very best photographers of my acquaintance, people who make photos which are both technically superb and substantively striking, use battered old equipment that, I suspect, would be shunned by most people on this forum. These guys care more about photography than about cameras. Their photos demonstrate those values.
  65. r s

    r s

    Jamie, interesting to read your post and looking at the thread where you posted the horrible PS-'correction' and wrote ..I am posting information to share what is, admittedly, recent gained knowledge, and is not an attempt to belittle people. Have a nice day, jerk.
  66. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    Rich, post the link to that thread why don't you? or, are you affraid we might judge for ourselves?
  67. r s

    r s

    here - but seems most images are gone in the thread. It was mostly Jamie's attitude that bugged me then - as well as it does today.
    Sad little guy really.
  68. hehe, great thread...i like that grant guys comments...
  69. r s

    r s

    Yeah, that grant guy is a riot.
  70. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    "Don't much care for your tone there Rich. Jamie's only trying to help/instruct."

    right...Why would you link a thread here that makes you look like even a bigger (insert favorite slam here) there?
  71. r s

    r s

    Your words not mine Eric and I still think you're an ass. No need to insert any word. That one fits you well.
  72. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    again dick, why would you link a thread here that makes you look like even a bigger cry baby there?
  73. P-E-A-C-E!
  74. rj


    Douglas, you said " I, too, have lamented the poor quality of so many photos posted here. From some of the attitudes, I've concluded that it happens because some -- only some -- Leica owners believe that spending huge money on equipment is sufficient to produce good photos, and they neglect to do the hard work of learning photography -- both the technical skills and the ability to see." and to some degree I agree with you, but no matter what camera brand or type is being discussed, there will still be people who think this way, its not just a leica phenomenon. I just don't understand how you can accurately judge color and contrast from a compressed jpeg on this forum, from my screen(not anywhere near the best in the world) everything looks too contrasty and bluish.

    Also, I would imagine that a number of leica shooters are darkroom printers too, meaning that they would rather spend their time producing a very good print in the darkroom rather than spend the time figuring out the best way to upload so everybody can see a tecnically superb compressed jpeg. Of course, I am just speculating.

    I really take issue with this statement from Jamie - "miserable looking things you'd complain to a cheap photofinisher about--but somehow feel perfectly free to post in an international photography forum." Why wouldn't you feel perfectly fine about posting any technically deficient image to this forum? Its just a forum that deals with leica type photography (whatever that is). I mean, if this forum is the end all for your images than great, make it as great as you wish, but it isn't for mine and I am certainly going to take more care with my real printing of the same images I might upload to this photo forum. (And yes, I would complain to a cheap photofinisher if he gave me horrible compressed jpegs for the money I paid him/her.)
  75. r s

    r s

    Hmm...I wish there was a way to put people on 'ignore' here. I'll try to do it manually until it's implemented.
  76. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    that'll keep me up worrying all night
  77. Well, let's really dig deep and find your marvelous introduction to the Leica Forum, shall we?
    Leica Photo Quality Rich Silfver , jun 12, 2004; 01:49 a.m.
    "I enjoy older film cameras and have been thinking about getting a Leica M3 lately as I really like the feel and build of the camera. I would be using the camera though and this is where I'm getting somewhat worried."
    "I find the vast majority of photos taken using Leica cameras to be lacking in quality - meaning unsharp, poor contrast, blown out highlights, grainy - and did I mention unsharp and poor contrast."
    "Granted most of the photos I've seen have been posted here and on a couple of other sites - but what really got me was a thread posted here today about 'napping'. There were some photos posted by someone named Bajit and the photos were GREAT. They were sharp, great contrast, etc. I got really excited as I thought that this was proof of the fact that Leicas were able to produce photos like this. Then...I searched his profile...and saw that the photos were taken with a Canon SLR camera..."
    "This is NOT to slam the Leica camera range or line of lenses!!! I am just seriously worried about the lack of well exposed, contrasy and sharp photos posted here. I could care less about the subject matter."
    "Having used a number of rangefinder cameras (fixed lens) I know it's harder to focus than an auto-focus SLR camera - but even so I am atleast able to get photos that are ok."
    "So - is it because most people here post street photos that were taken quickly and with little time to focus? If so - if anyone have photos taken of static objects/or portraits I would LOVE to see them so please post some examples."
    "Is it maybe that many people use older lenses for nostalgic reasons and that they are of a poor optical quality?"
    "I'm honestly 'worried' about seeing so many 'low-quality' photos taken using this camera/line of lenses. If I'm going to spend money on this system I would like to atleast see some examples of nice looking photos."
    So, what do you think of us these days, Rich. Now you're a member of the club? What a joke.
  78. you can judge a photo under very high standard of measures. But in art world, it is not 1 or zero. Photos presented have their stories.
  79. I always thought I was the most arrogant person on the forum until I read this.
  80. In defense of awful photos: I sometimes use technically awful photos because they're great photos. After someone's won an election, or been shot, or (as happened recently at a funeral here in the West Bank) faints with emotion, you take the picture first, then check exposure and focus. Sometimes that 1st picture is the one that best sums up the moment.
  81. A 30 Second punch-up on Photoshop.
  82. Well, if the intent of this post was to ensure a continuation of the 'lets-scare-away-the-amateurs' status quo, then mission accomplished!

    Or OTOH, keep it up: The 'experts' here who selflessly take time out of their busy professional lives to police an amateur photography forum have an entertainment value all their own.
  83. what is superior photography?​

  84. Someone please hide Mr. Learned's copy of Photoshop.
  85. Horrible color, over exposed, under exposed. Contrast flat as pancake, miserable looking things you'd complain to a cheap photofinisher about--but somehow feel perfectly free to post in an international photography forum. Why?​

    Considering that you've specifically asked in the Leica Forum, let me suggest that many people here don't know how bad their photos really are, they believe their expensive gear results in good photos when they do not, and they use this group as a support forum in which other, equally average (or worse) photographers take the opportunity to pat each others' backs and say how great their pics are.
  86. And the other side of that coin is the small group here who imagine their talent so great that it gives them license to mock and ridicule others, yet no evidence of their talent is available in print.
  87. Do they know it is technically awful?

    Are they looking for technical advice?

    Are they pro's or amateurs looking for that elusive "I know something is wrong but I don't know what?"

    To achieve a great picture, you first have to know the rules. Then to make an outstanding picture you have to twist the same rules in order to catch the eye of the experts. Beeing close to the boundary makes you prone to mess things. Photography like cooking are not exact science most of the time you need something beyond technick.

    Greetings B. B.
  88. wow ... things are getting hot in Leica forum too!! I thought it was the only 'apanage' or privilege of Feedback forum and obsessed of TRP (top Rated Pages) of the Gallery...!<p>:eek:((
  89. At least they post pixs unlike most forums.It's the ability to use a scanner effectively which will decide how good they look on screen.
  90. No one can accuse Kevin of that other side of the coin of which he writes; indeed, that
    first side may well describe him.
  91. Peter A wrote "Pay attention to the substance of what a few people have written - there is a lot of craft involved in preparing a pic for print or for web display and we are talking best practise the two are very different again."

    Thats funny, I thought that this thread was because of a series of photos posted by Peter A a few threads down, and people complimented those.
  92. To achieve a great picture, you first have to know the rules.
    What rules?
  93. Apparently, #1 is 'Buy a Leica.'
  94. " You could at least increase the contrast on your black and white work. They are flat.

    After observing his porfolio, I would disagree with you. Flat to me, means all gray prints. His pictures showed details on the black areas and the highlights are not blocked, showing a myriad of grays in beetween. Excellent negatives to work with and I bet, he has expertise with ONE FILM and ONE DEVELOPER. Fred Picker used to tell us that "photographers" would open their windows in the morning and say: " Today is a day for such and such B&W film with a such and such developer". No consistance at all! You have to have a perfect negative to be able to print without to much fuss concerning dodging and burning.

    Now, if you want beautiful high contrast prints with details, look at Brett Weston's work as well as Winn Bullock's, Paul Strand's, Edward Weston's, and the great darkroom wizard - Eugene Smith's.

    High contrast amateurish prints, mean blackness everywhere and all one is able to see are, people's silhouettes. Not acceptable...in my humble opinion!

    This forum has excellent printers like Jeff, Grant, Belagi, Peter,
    Kevin and others.
  95. whats with people and details in blacks? thats such a bs thing and only limits ones vision to a certain type of aesthetic. there are many different ways to express oneself, be it high key low key color bw pitch dark black and stark whites, whatever....there are no rules in life, as death consistently proves over and over...
  96. "...no rules..."
    What? No rules?....(gasp)
  97. "there are no rules in life, as death consistently proves over and over..." and taxes... for once, i'm in total agreement with grant. if a style suits your work - even for a limited time - go for it.
  98. some of it may be simply about visual preferences. if not, people will eventually learn to make technically better images. this is not an earthrattling issue is it?
  99. apparently its so simple its eludes logic
  100. there are no rules in life, as death consistently proves over and over...

    and taxes...

    what more can I say? Bob I like those shots. Thanks.
  101. Make yourself useful, Bailey. Here's a link to some work of mine. If you have criticism of either a destructive or constructive nature that I can make use of, then let me have it. (Most of the pics are under "our flavor.")
  102. Sometimes, the content of the photo, the subject, or something about the subject, is what is important to the person who took the photo, not the technical quality. Who is to say what is technical quality anyway. That's something for school, not for the real world, and much of it can be in the eyes of the beholder, as someone else already stated. To me, being openly critical of other people's photos and their technical qualities is very much comparable to people who correct other people's spelling or grammar, or who criticize the colour coordination of their outfits. I don't know about you, but I can't stand people like that.
  103. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    amazing how people read into and distort the whole point of the post. i'd like to see poeple submitting the best possible work that technology allows here. not quality that, as Jamie said, you wouldn't even except from the photo finisher. i'm not intrested in seeing photos taken off the fridge and tossed onto the flatbed scanner and posted with dust and dog hair and a "Happy Birthday Al" thread started. it bugs me.
  104. But what if you were, like, extremely artistic in the way you arranged your dog-hairs?

    Would that be OK?
  105. I would classify dust as a technical problem. Contrast, colour, exposure, well, these could be subjective IMO.
    I remembered when I posted a very contrasty shot of a man and a woman, a forumer basically said it had nothing going for him because he can't read the words on a signboard in the picture and that the tones were missing (DUH!). If I'd wanted a full gamut of tones, I'd present a full gamut tonal picture as best I could.

    But I doubt Jamie was riding a horse looking down. I just don't feel that way. The forum does need some humour.
  106. earlier I was worried about the price of tea in china and now, that just seems whimsical.
  107. Make youself useful, Kevin: don't use html unless you first learn how to close tags.
  108. I post a link to dozens of pics, and I get html feedback?

    Some people on this forum are shooters, and they post pics; some people are gearheads and collectors, and they post useful information about cameras. You're rumored to be a knowledgeable critic, so why not share your skills with other members of the forum? That's what I meant by "make yourself useful."

    My pics are there, care to play?
  109. Kevin, you are a shooter to me.
  110. When you screw up the look of a thread because of incompetence, yes, you get html
    feedback. Quit whining please, and try to be useful.
  111. Weak, AZ.
  112. Hey, it's Mendy's screw-up, not mine.
  113. "Why do people post technically awful photos? " because they have used a jamcam and that's how they turn out? sorry...well no not really, just in a goofy mood
    i know this won't last
  114. Ok, I don't have a Leica, so what I am about to say is not worth fondling....(j/k).

    I was going to post to failed photos of Elephanta Island, India to show fellow PNers some film reccomendations. Do these photos have any value of posting? Probably if you are not anal retentive and would have liked to have been a tad better prepared for travel snapshots.

    I'll post them anyway, who cares if somebody thinks they have no technical merit, thats the point. If they give you a heads up on what not to do, isn't that of value?

    Anyway, I guess every b+w exposition prior to 1990 at the Leica Musuem in Prague were horrible photos, they didn't even have Photo Slop, I always thought Ansel Adams sucked, now I know why, he didn't have Photo Shop either.

    What a great thread to an extreme anal view.

    Jamie, your constructive comments to the posters of horrible photos would have been really appreciated, they would have learned from you instead of being looked down upon.

    Some of you guys may remmeber me, I posted a question a while back on the Leica Forum, which was better, vodka with Technidol or D-76, and asked about a starter Leica RF for my girlfriend. I never did get her the camera, I bought a few more Zeiss lenses for my C645 instead. She is getting in great shape carrying it, but in the spirit of friendship, I carry the tripod. But, there is an M6 in our future.

    Cheers, be happy.
  115. Hey did you check out Kevin's link. Those are flying dog hairs at http://www.natporter.com/
  116. That effect is flying dog something.
  117. This thread is one of the reasons I find myself posting fewer and fewer pictures on this site. It's like hanging out with a bunch of stuck up bitches at a high school basketball game.

    PS-Nice to see you back, and in fine form AZ...

    I just wish you would get rid of those beady little eyes.

    Try this:

  118. are you saying the Z person ( i resist having to do whaterver that thing is in front of the Z) is a Heather???? I kind of think of her/him as the fussy aunt in a Jane Austen novel. but it is fun reading Z posts. gets totally worked up about nothing of significance.
  119. "To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,<BR>
    Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,<BR>
    To the last syllable of recorded time;<BR>
    And all our yesterdays have lighted fools<BR>
    The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!<BR>
    Life's but a walking shadow; a poor player,<BR>
    That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,<BR>
    And then is heard no more: it is a tale<BR>
    Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,<BR>
    Signifying nothing." <BR>
    --From Macbeth (V, v, 19)
  120. Sound and fury, signifying Vikram "Vic" Singh.

Share This Page