brian halpin Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Of course, you can't stereotype a person's style to where they store their images. But browsing on flickr, I just tend to get annoyed with all the positive comments. Someone posts a photo, then you get a selection of comments amazed by the colours; amazed of what photoshop can do when there is nothing special with the image to begin with. Very rarely do I see constructive criticism, the complete opposite to this site. All I see tends to be idiotic ass licking and they're not even kids either. I just don't get posting images and never getting real comments back. Is it just me or am I a cynical bastard... Of course, there's also plenty of talent and people use flickr to display personal and experimental work. I just feel with blogs and flickr that I rarely see good clever images; something that makes me think or feel an emotion. A lot is eye candy. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phule Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 << I just tend to get annoyed with all the positive comments. >> flickr is no different from any other photography-themed website, including photo.net. << I just feel with blogs and flickr that I rarely see good clever images; >> Maybe the sites you're looking at are not intended for you? << Very rarely do I see constructive criticism, >> How often do you leave such criticism in a random blog or flickr set? << Thoughts? >> Why do you care if someone likes a photo? Where is it written that when viewing photos, one must always critique? People like crappy photos, people hate good photos, people like great photos, and people hate horrible photos. So what? Ok, so the internet makes it possible to share your photos with a wider audience more quickly, but no one is forcing you to view these. So I ask again, why do you care if someone likes a photo you hate? What makes you so sure that you're right and they're wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kai_griffin Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 The internet exposes you to the thoughts and opinions of people whose thoughts and opinions you'd never have otherwise heard, noticed or cared about, let alone allowed yourself to become annoyed about. Getting annoyed about people praising mediocrity on the internet is like overhearing a conversation on a bus between people raving about a TV soap opera you abhor, and then going home annoyed by their conversation. On the bus, your personal filter would probably kick in and you'd ignore the conversation... but on the internet one is often mysteriously compelled to read it, even if everything tells you that you shouldn't bother.<p>It's not just you. Effectively, internet forums allow you to get dragged into things that you'd never in normal day-to-day life get dragged into. There's one particularly crazy whacko who writes at extraordinary length here on PN in the Large Format area, whom I just can't help responding to, despite the fact that he's clearly quite unhinged. Now, if I found someone ranting and raving on a bus the way that guy rants and raves here, I'd sink deeper into my seat and bury my nose in a book, and keep right out of it. I'd certainly not give a hoot about what he was saying. I also think it's a sign of how much respect we have for the written (as opposed to spoken) word that we're much more readily inflamed by what we see in print than we would be if we simply heard it in a passing conversation. "Those Cartoons" are certainly a strong example of that in action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian halpin Posted February 28, 2006 Author Share Posted February 28, 2006 Kai Griffin: I fully agree, great reply. I always avoid negative comments towards pics but I still try and be contructive and at least try and say something good about the pic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbing Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 What is 'flickr'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kai_griffin Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Merryl: www.flickr.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kai_griffin Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Sorrrry for the extra "r" in your name - it was too late when I noticed it :-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant_lupton1 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Brian, I know what you mean. Look at following site: www.photography-cafe.com For those who find an 18-30 holiday intellectually extending. Grant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 <P>Kai's point is a good one. We're still getting used to the internet as a medium of communication. It's difficult even to compare it with what went before.</P><P>However, comments are just comments, so unless someone out there is addressing a comment to you personally, I see no reason to get annoyed or even take an interest. Treat it, as Kai said, as merely overhearing an inane conversation.</P> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico_digoliardi Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 The purpose of such behavior is to promote mediocrity. Excellent work gets the same praise as any other. No bad feelings, guaranteed. It's like talking to a corpse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GerrySiegel Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 It depends on what school of human behavior you were raised in. I still think that there is something to the transaction theory. Poster A posts photo, and says let me have it cold.Poster B makes a friendly attempt with the language of diplomacy. Makes a friendly this part is nice,etc gesture and then says "but...." and goes after the softer spots in the image. The transaction analysis is like so: A receives 1) approval, or 2) helpful if gentle criticism. Ok. What does B get out of the exchange?? B must by this theory get SOMETHING back <p>Nothing I see in either case,unless the two are old online friends and have learned to share honest remarks in a common lingo,and then why do that in public,friends meet in private when they offer blunt advice. And if the friendship is valuable,bluntness is dangerous..As a friend,would one want to endanger the friendship by publicly and inadvertently even being provocatively damning in a remark..<p> Now, this sociology jazz has clear exceptions,-if there is a teacher-student relationship and the teacher is paid,(in prestige or money or both,) I do not expect to see much serious,thoughtful, on-line useful feedback happening very often,especially in the run of the mill web place. (Sure, it is normal to say thanks for the feedback,but then what?) It seems to be a benny of PN that maturity and indulgence exists much of the time (dont laff.)Approbation that you know will come is reinforcing,true enough,but the goal is approbation I believe,not so much ideas per se. That it does so at all is a surprise boon, to only be praised as an ideal to shoot for, at least in this culture where I grew up.<p> My two kopeks. Thanks for listening. Opposite views welcome and I could be wrong,but be cautious and sincere, as I am sensitive as can be :-)GS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant_lupton1 Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Pico, And promoting mediocrity results in greater inclusiveness; the larger the number of participants, the more "value" can attributed to the site and the greater advertising potential and revenue. Altruistic motives (probably never present) become exploitative. Then again, I am a cynic. Put me down for the IPO. Grant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h._p. Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Of course, one man's mediocrity is another man's excellence. It takes a certain level of stupidity to assume that because something is not to your taste, it's bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 What's really ignorant is to assume that because something is described as bad, that it must reflect some misunderstanding on the part of the viewer. Mediocre pictures are easy to spot if you have a clear sense of what an improved version looks like. This isn't rocket science, nor is it nearly as subjective as the untrained photographers think it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GerrySiegel Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 If one yearns for clever images to "make me feel emotion" one can find them. Clever images abound. Humbling actually,like having Jascha Heifetz next door practicing all day.<p> Didn't some politician have a platform which argued that the country needed representation for all the mediocre average noodniks and newbies among us.... No, you are a not a cynical bastard especially,just in a cynical mood, Brian. It will pass..stay away from Strindberg plays for the time...eye candy is OK,if it has some IT factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h._p. Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 There's always going to be disagreement between those who believe that there are absolute standards of taste and those, myself included, who believe that there is no absolute standard. I apologise for using the word 'stupid'. What I really wanted to imply is that it is insular and lacking in empathy to assume that your standards are better than another person's standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 You confuse taste and standards. The word "insular" works well in this context because that's how I would describe those who can't imagine improvements to most snapshots. That has nothing to do with empathy, unless you want to eliminate the whole concept of teacher and student. Taste is another thing entirely. There are countless images out there where the maker knew exactly what he was doing, yet very few viewers will understand or care about them. I get the feeling that you want to elevate thoughtless snaps to the same stature as other similars that are well crafted, thoughtfully conceived images. You don't think that about music, or paintings, or any other form of self expression, do you? Put another way, do you think all aspects of photography are intuative? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h._p. Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 Sometimes it's just best to agree to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 That would be the safe way to respond, giving the impression that all points of view are equally valid. On the other hand, I've responded to specific points you've made, whereas you have declined to respond to mine. Good thing this isn't a formal debate. . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h._p. Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 I won't be drawn into an argument which will simply be a series of statements of opposing opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
root Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 What other kind is there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kai_griffin Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 Well, there's always the kind of argument consisting of a series of statements of concurring views.<p> Fair enough, avoid arguments as best you can, HP. Instead, how about an exchange of different ideas, from which participants might glean a different way of thinking about things they once thought were immutable? Gosh, it would be nice if more people could think that way in general, but as long as there are people who think that expressing different views is the same thing as having a disagreeable argument, it'll always be the minority way of discussing things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h._p. Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 It would be nice to think that one _could_ exchange views without the descent into personal attack practiced by a minority here. Winning the lottery would be nice too and, unfortunately, it often seems more likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennyboy Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 How ironic. It still amuses me that people expect me to be a good photographer because I have 'a big lens'. Regarding Flickr, I've seen just as much butt snorkling going on right here on photo.net, however, I've also seen a lot of strong critique. It's good that the site is, at the very least, all encompassing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phule Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 << I get the feeling that you want to elevate thoughtless snaps to the same stature as other similars that are well crafted, thoughtfully conceived images. >> Except for the fact that there are a tremendous number of famous (and highly praised) images that relied on nothing more than luck for the shot. I've read many interviews with professional photographers who say things like "I didn't think, I just raised the camera to my eye and pressed the shutter." Sometimes compositions present themselves to you in fleeting moments. You can talk all you want about "standards" but unless there's an ISO paper on what does and doesn't make a good photograph, such talk is a load of nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now