Why is "good" photography so important?

I have read quite a bit about the need to display "good" photography

here and that "mediocre" photography is PITA for some to even watch

it on screen.

 

Isn't a picture what someone sees/feels at the moment and then felt

good enough to post them based on what they like? Why can't that be

at least respected? How do you think by classifying them is gonna

change anything?

 

One can say if she/he likes the pix posted by why the constant need

to classify them as "good" or "mediocre"? Can someone show me an

example of good and an example of mediocre photograph?

 

It's just pictures for crying out loud.

 

The best thing I find in this forum is the willingness of people

sticking their heads out and post the things they saw. In a way,

sharing their vision or art, sort of.

 

I just wish such verbal classification would be of any help for

someone starting out shooting. Perhaps some of you have seen it and

done it all, but others are trying.

 

cheers.

Travis,

 

This is a "good" post. $^)

 

Erik.

Travis:

 

I am totally with you on this issue. I think some people just really need medication to mellow out a bit and be able to enjoy seeing the scenes and people they have never seen before. Most critiques I have read so far don't really apply to my vision, although granted some of them are somewhat helpful. Appreciation and respect to the doers (as opposed to talkers) goes a long way.

 

I agree, this is an excellent post.

It all depends on what you are going for.

 

I think there are some things that we all can agree on that make a photo more or less pleasing (depending on the subject matter). Harsh direct lighting vs soft angled lighting. Subject in focus vs not in focus. Strong composition vs bulls-eye �dead in the center�. Etc Etc

 

But after that, things really get down to personal opinion and connection with the subject. And there really is no "good" or "bad". Just what is good or bad to you specifically. Some of my most cherished photos would get nothing but a glance by a photo critic. But they mean the world to me because of the moment they capture. Exactly the reason people are so fond of "boring" kid photos. the subject means more to them than the photo does.

 

Personally, I enjoy seeking to make "good" (in my mind) photos. And I like to hear useful critique from knowledgeable people. I may not agree with it, and I may not pay attention to it, but it makes me examine my photos and the situation in which I took them. Hence my recent suggestion of the CRIT tag.

 

But if you would rather not have people commenting on your photos in that way, well that's what the NW concept was created for. Just a place to post up photos for the sheer purpose of looking at photos.

There's little to be gained by the photographer from bland, unqualified comments like "That's good" or "That's crud".

 

However, there are generally-accepted standards of good composition, good exposure, good printing, etc., and photos which fall well below those standards are probably best not publicised _unless_ they form the basis of constructive comments from viewers, at which point they serve a positive purpose.

 

Lest I sound boring at this point ("Never!" they cried) photography is not just about keeping within generally-accepted boundaries of good composition, good exposure, etc. An original, 'rule-breaking' photo (even of an otherwise mundane subject) will often have a real 'wow' factor.

 

Finally, don't let's get into what constitutes 'art'. You can defaecate on a piece of canvas, spread the result around with a shovel and insist it's art, but us normal people are unlikely to agree!

 

Nigel.

i dont see what youre trying to say or prove. if you truly feel this way, just keep doing what youre doing, and dont worry what others think.

Josh, Im all for the CRIT project. The thing is, I just wish we stop classifying people here into good and mediocre photographers....

 

e,g: I paraphrase: "Im here to enjoy good photography, and not mediocre photography..."( from a recent thread...)....<----how is this even helpful or mean anything?

 

 

Perhaps what I was trying to say in my first TITLE was :

 

"why is being a "good" photographer so important".

I show mediocre photos here all the time (along with the ones I

like). LPF gets more than my portfolio does, but it's nice now and

then when a picture you weren't expecting gets a reaction. In any

creative process it's as important to know what you don't like, as

it is to know what you do, and why (a personal observation). The

very first person you should ask "what do you think of this

photograph?" is yourself- surprisingly many people seem not to

do this. This photo, I think is not anything special, but swimming

pools hold a fascination for me, and I wouldn't hesitate to

include it in a W/NW thread. You can't learn without making

mistakes.

is it important to YOU?

for that matter, why is being a so called "mediocre" photographer so less important? Does it mean he/she should stay out from forums?

 

grant, precisely, I don't get it.

theres nothing to get. stop wasting youre time and do what you gotta do

haven't had my coffee yet<div></div>

grant, I am! just something off my chest.;)

 

hope you too.

good, bad and everything else are so relative anyway. whats good to you is bad to someone else....they all have very little meaning as far as constants go....

Good photography, informs, communicates, educates. It makes us laugh, it makes us cry. It reminds us of the common everyday moments, and historic moments. It can show us all that is beautiful and all that is ugly. Happy snaps, Sal

my point exactly, everyone has their own idea of what good photography is....all are valid, none are right...

I agree with Sal. That in fact says it all.

The best threads here are the ones where people post their throwaway, out-of-focus, overexposed shots. These have a little life to them. So much "bad" photography on this site is little formalist compositional exercises of static subjects. Yes, they're just pictures, but, in theory, we are all trying to improve. Most people only post photos they are satisfied with or are proud of--and not everyone is a good editor, and most people need to work hard to develop their skills, regardless of where they are now. Seeking reinforcement for your current methods won't see you very far.

 

I don't think, Travis, that people really stick their heads out here. Why should they? This isn't really a criticism site. The shots are tepid and the comments are raucous.

I'm not sure what you mean, but my policy on this forum is that I only comment when I have something positive to say. I'm not suggesting however, that constructive critisism isn't also useful to the poster though.

 

Re. good vs bad. I certainly know when I have taken a "good" image, and I also know that if one of my images is poorly focussed and poorly composed, then it is usually "less good". We all enjoy our photography for our own reasons, and I agree that pigeonholing may not be too constructive.

 

Just out of interest, do you not feel that an some images are objectively better than others?

each one is as good or bad as one says, which doesnt mean shyt.

Nice post Travis. When I started out in photography at the age of 16 it was fun and exciting, and sharing images with my family and friends was a real joy. I still feel that way. However, when people post their pictures in the Leica Forum they risk having their work called "insignificant," "mediocre," "trivial," "it's been done before," and "not good enough to make us proud of our Leica cameras." In short, this is one heck of a tough audience! :-) But no one can agree on exactly what is good and significant.

 

I wish there were more of a welcoming and inclusive attitude on the Leica Forum, with people willing to mentor others and offer constructive criticism. I find that on some other forums I frequent (not all photography-related), but not so much here.

I disagree. The whole point of showing something is to show something special. We really do not want to see everyone's photographs of their children, sunsets, and waterfalls. There are many other things that are worthwhile subjects. Find them.

"There is a natural order..." - (Way of the Gun) - well, maybe not, but there's no doubt that the reason we admire people like Salgado, HCB, MEM etc. is because they are/were good snappers. Some photographers are simply better than others and there's no way you can deny it. Why is that important? Because when you get involved in anything like photography, unless you're a total self-satisfied bonehead, you want to get better at what you're doing. It may be painful to hear that your work is nothing special or even poor - and we all hear it from time to time - but it is often the truth. The simple fact of having taken a picture which you like doesn't make it objectively good (OK, time for Harvey to give me the finger). I would have thought that even just the act of posting a shot in public means that you think it is better than the ones you didn't post. This suggests that we all believe in a hierarchy of quality. Not to do so is to deny something that informs every area of human endeavour.

 

Can someone show you an example of a mediocre picture and a good picture? Well, Quiche Lorraine's recent picture of a mosque is poor - it communicates nothing and is boring. Bee Flowers' photography is generally excellent, although I don't think that of all his snaps. I would contend that most of the pictures shown on this site are mediocre to poor, with the occasional good one that really stands out. We might not agree about where to draw that line, but it is in the nature of things that that's the way it's going to be.

Mediocre's good in my book. If I wanted to see <I>great</i> photography, well, there's no shortage of books, museums, websites. But I like to see the things that people shoot going about their daily lives, on their way to work, to see what they make of the things that grab their attention.

<P>

Really, I've seen enough pictures of bridges at sunset, nudes in dappled light, flower macros and all the rest. Not living near famous bridges (or nudes, for that matter), I find it more inspiring to see dead ordinary stuff in photos, dead ordinary stuff that I pass every day and might not have noticed or have noticed but didn't have the wit to think what I could do with. Many photos here are good, possibly great. Some are worse than mine, even. But it doesn't matter.

 

<P>It's not the image, it's the attempt, the experimentation.

>>Andy . , mar 09, 2004; 12:32 p.m. Just out of interest, do you not feel that an some images are objectively better than others?

 

The difference between good photos and bad photos, according to HCB, is that good photos will attract your attention for 15 seconds, such as HCB's very own images (if we can quot them as good images), while bad photos will also attract you for 15 seconds. No typo here. 15 seconds is all you are going to get.

 

I won't go so far to say the same but do acknowledge that photos are mainly preserving the history so one (photographer and hopefully some others) can relive the moment. Some images do a better job in preserving the moment and others less. That's all the difference there is to count.

 

Now, you can decide you are a good photographer or a mediocre or a bad.