Criticism, cameras,composition,Coca Cola.

[ellis_vener_photography]

one more clarification:

 

I was never writing about Gene M.'s photographic skills with a camera. never. I was only

referring to his scanning skills.

[bruce_appel]

I have to agree with Gene. Criticism should contain something specific, so as to be useful to the person seeking the criticism. I have been making photographs since childhood. Every now and again I get something I like. I really think my most useful accessory is the trash can.

That said, I rarely feel I have the knowledge to criticize what someone else does. If it is something concrete, like " try developng the negative a little more to improve the contrast", or something like that I may chime in, but beyond that I can't really tell someone what works for them or what doesn't.

As to the pictures posted here needing to follow the guidelines of being interesting and interesting imediatley, I'm not so sure I buy that. This board is for classic cameras, and while I much prefer seing nice photos (and there are lots here), the idea is to show what various old cameras are capable of.We should not limit ourselves to fine art work here I think. I love to see stuff from various lens/camera/film combos, as it gives me a data base for my own work.

[mike dixon]

<i>Look at the profusion of digital photographs on today's photography bulletin boards. There are thousands of cats, millions of flowers and sunsets. Digital cameras allow us to shoot volumes of photographs at no cost with no waiting. They make it easy to produce photographs that could put a cup of coffee to sleep.</i><P>

I've also been photographing for over thirty years, and I remember that, before digital, there were thousands of photos of cats, and millions of photos of flowers and sunsets. It has always been easy to produce photographs that could put a cup of coffee to sleep. Digital capture has made it easier to upload them onto bulletin boards, but it's just silly to claim that digital cameras are responsible for the content of those images. (And let's not forget those Cokin "creative" filters that produce results just as trite and dismal as heavy-handed Photoshop manipulations!) People have been able to point & shoot since Kodak introduced Brownie box cameras over a hundred years ago.<p>

<i> Of course criticism has to contain information to be useful. Statments like "you suck," aren't much help. "Try scanning with a better scanner and with someone who knows what they are doing." Is about as useful as "you suck."</i><P>

You had claimed you didn't even know the scanner used, and you were presenting your results as evidence that digital photography was terribly inferior. In that context, I think Ellis's comment was quite valid. It was certainly more substantive than proclaiming "digital my arse" based on your absurd comparison.<P>

<i>There's no real camera snobbery here . . .</i><P>

As long as it's old and it takes film, right?<p>

<i> As a photographer you must continually examine your own work. Are you improving ? Are you becoming more interesting ? Is your "style" merely stagnancy ? Do your photographs do what you intended ? Are you making up their meaning after you see the print ?</i><P>

I agree completely. I would add a few more: Am I attributing special qualities to images just because of how they were made? Am I confusing the joy I felt in making the image with the quality of the image itself?

[vivek iyer]

Many Thought provoking comments Mike Dixon! Especially, the last paragraph. Thanks!

[jonathan_brewer1]

'This board is for classic cameras, and while I much prefer seing nice photos (and there are lots here), the idea is to show what various old cameras are capable of.We should not limit ourselves to fine art work here I think.'..............................what I like about the Classic Cameras forum is that it's laid back, I think part of the reason for that is that because of the nature of the forum and that many photographers around here are experienced and can appreciate a Classic Camera, as to whether or not we should/shouldn't limit this forum to fina art work or not, I think it's a distinction w/o a difference....................I've seen much of the work uploaded on all the other various forums, and the work here is the equal of everything else I've seen, whether you consider it in a fire art vein or not, now for me personally, my Minolta Autocord is one of my FINEST cameras, and its Rokkor lens is one of my FINEST optics, period.

 

I use the Autocord as much nowadays as anything, and it gives a richness in texture/patina to my imagery, particularly when I shoot Kodak HS infrared, that gives me endless joy, in fact bells 'n whistles notwithstanding, 'old cameras' can compete w/the new 'head up' w/anything, since the brain behind the camera makes the difference anyway. My comments were directed generally at the idea of nurturing in the right way, the aspirations of folks just starting out, who chime in w/questions on this forum and the others, not just this forum exclusively.

 

Classic cameras have a very rich contribution to photography that is exciting and ongoing, may folks don't know about cameras like the Minolta Autocord, some of them believing that only a new camera engorged w/ bells 'n whistles and w/a lens clinically sharp to the point of agony will make good pictures. Old cameras make pictures as good as new ones, they just don't make w/motordrives, autoexposure and autofocus.