A Great Photograph...oh yea?

[jgalyon]

<p>I'm so completely worn out from all the <strong>serious </strong>discussion about race, religion, and politics in the Off-Topic Forum...that I thought I'd take a rest and initiate some dialogue on a less serious, but hopefully interesting and entertaining topic.</p>

<p>There's a website somewhere out there (that I learned of from a past PN thread) that is devoted to posting pictures for critique...all taken my various "masters/greats" of photography...but, the viewer is left to think that they're taken by hack photographers...such as myself. </p>

<p>It's absolutely hilarious to hear some guy from Bumf**k, berate the work of everyone from Cartier-Bresson...to Helmut Newton, and everyone in between. However, my reactions...to <em>their</em> reactions varies widely. Some of the comments clearly indicate that the viewer couldn't tell you the difference between a lens hood and a tripod...or that they haven't spent a whole lot of time studying the history of the craft, or they'd at least recognize one or two of some of the most well known photographs on the planet! In those instances, it's a bit funny...and a bit sad...and a bit annoying. On the other hand...I believe that quite often there is an honesty that is exposed in their comments that we might never hear (or that the viewer might never realize or admit to) if the viewer had known that the picture was taken by a "famous" photographer. I often ponder the question: to what degree are my tastes in photography, my perception of what is a "good" or "bad" photograph...my "like and dislikes"... determined by outside influences? Would "Moonrise Hernandez" blow me away...if I didn't know it was taken by A.A., and is the most widely viewed and recognized photograph in the world? You get the picture...(or do you?) <br>

A few years back my wife and I went to an exhibit of Edward Weston's work. I'm definitely a fan, and certainly appreciate the genius of his work...but to be quite honest, there was also a photography exhibit on display that was soley comprised of the work of local student photographers...and several of those photographs...I "liked" more than some of Weston's work. I think this experience served as the catalyst in the development of how I view and critique photographs today. That is...I try to separate myself from what I know of the photographer, e.g. famous photographers, beginning photographers, photographers who shoot genres/styles I'm not familiar with...or that don't appeal to me...and be as objective as I can about the photograph itself. </p>

<p>Do you guys find yourself pondering this matter on occassion...or is it just me... being OCD?</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>No John, it's not just you. I agree with nearly everything you wrote. However, who can say that these prior photo masters do not often influence us today and every day in our style and subject matter?</p>

<p>For example, Cartier-Bresson does little to nothing for me. In Wiki it says, "[Henri] was a French photographer considered to be the father of modern photojournalism, an early adopter of 35 mm format, and the master of candid photography. He helped develop the "street photography" or "real life reportage" style that has influenced generations of photographers that followed."</p>

<p>There you go, the INFLUENCE. I dare say there's probably not one single people/street photographer on this site not at least subtly influenced by this prior master.</p>

<p>Everything's been photographed already anyway, right? It's just minor stylistic changes and politics and modern tools that make the common seem different? Just guessing.</p>

[iliafarniev]

<p>No. Sorry to say. Maybe some PTSS elements in a good way, but generaly, no.</p>

<p>The way i look at it, let kids rock. As long as they eat pizzas we are on top of the game.</p>

[mark_chartrand]

<p>John,</p>

<p>I like to think I am judging the photograph, not the body of work by the photographer. It doesn't matter to me who took the photograph that I critique. It is all personal opinion. If you shoot enough photographs you are bound to come up with a portrait I like. Of course, you will also come up with a portrait I don't like. It really makes little difference to me if someone else likes or dislikes a photograph I like. I just don't get what all the fuss is about.</p>

<p>Maybe if you can find enough friends to tell you that you are great it makes you great. I have had enough people here get upset with my critiques, because they think their photograph is better than I do, that I wonder why they want a critique at all. Maybe their mother or girlfriend/boyfriend told them the portrait was pretty? Humans can be a strange species. </p>

<p>Mark</p>

[jgalyon]

<blockquote>

<p>However, who can say that these prior photo masters do not often influence us today and every day in our style and subject matter?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm certain they do influence us all to some degree or another. Related to all this...I've often wondered what my photographs might look like if I had never seen a single photograph. Don't you wish you could know the answer to that question? I'd love to have a few years of that experience! </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Everything's been photographed already anyway, right? It's just minor stylistic changes and politics and modern tools that make the common seem different? Just guessing.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Very true...although I wish it weren't so. Wouldn't it have been grand to have been a photographer when there were so many frontiers open to exploration?</p>

<p>Ilia, My friend...I am a big fan of your work...but I have absolutely no idea what you meant with "the pizza thing"! ;) </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe if you can find enough friends to tell you that you are great it makes you great. I have had enough people here get upset with my critiques, because they think their photograph is better than I do, that I wonder why they want a critique at all. Maybe their mother or girlfriend/boyfriend told them the portrait was pretty? Humans can be a strange species</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Yes...humans can be, and quite often <em>are</em>...a strange species. I have no doubt that there will be people who read your comments, and with any ability to reason at all, would see how utterly stupid it is to ask for a critique...but then get upset...if someone is the least bit "critical". I can be pretty blunt when it comes to giving critiques...but I always try to temper my remarks with a sincere, "but that's just my opinion", because....it's just that and nothing more...an opinion. But I must admit that I got a little too brutal with one PN member when I described one of his nude portraits of rather rotund women draped in large multi-colored pieces of satin...as looking like a "hillbilly harem". I was being honest...but damn, I'd have probably been a bit bent out of shape if I'd been on the receiving end of that comment ;) However, I recall reading an article that gave an account of some famous art critic of the 19th century (name I can't recall) who walked into a gallery and offered a spontaneous critique of a particular artists's paintings. He walked from one painting to the next....pointing at each and saying only , sh*t....sh*t, and this one is sh*t. The painter is recorded as saying that it was the most beneficial "critique" he had ever received. If I had been the painter...I probably wouldn't have been angry, so much as having my little feeling hurt. But in the end, whether or not I would agree with the assessment...I know that it was cause me to pause...and consider why my work would draw such a strong reaction. Somehow I don't think that calling a PN member's photograph "sh*t" would work so well....</p>

<p> </p>

[jmg1911]

<p>John -<br>

I totally understand your painting critic and the painter. After his one-word critique, all the learned elaboration in the world just boils down to rationalization.<br>

Jim</p>

[stp]

<p>It's my opinion that photographers make photographs from a particular frame of mind and often to express a particular thought or feeling. If we do not share that frame of mind and are clueless about the thought or feeling that was being attempted, then we may have a very difficult time evaluating and critiquing a photograph beyond just the technical aspects. I've done that even here on photo.net: I've given a critique, the photographer has replied with some information that put the photograph in an entirely new light, and it influenced my opinion about the photo that the critique that I would give it. So like John, I try to add an "IMHO" to my critiques, especially those that are somewhat critical. When something is truly awful (IMO!), I'm less certain about even leaving a comment. I may totally not understand the photographer and may be missing a critical point, or I may be setting myself up as a target for someone who, deep down, really does not want an honest critique. It's difficult to know. I'm most comfortable pointing out the things that I like and the way(s) that I can interpret the photo, but to also suggest alternatives (lighting, composition, etc.) for the photographer to consider.</p>

<p>So it helps me to know where the photographer is coming from and where he/she is wanting to go with a particular photograph, but usually this information is absent. Even this is an opinion: it could be argued that the viewing and critiquing of a photo shouldn't necessarily require this information in order to form an opinion and offer a critique. I may not disagree with that, except to say it would be a somewhat different critique and that I, personally, would prefer to offer comments only after having a certain amount of knowledge about the photograph.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Stephen, I think it's not an either/or situation. There are times when knowledge of the photographer's intent and goals will make a difference in my viewing experience and judgment, and times when such knowledge wouldn't make a difference. I look at each photo differently. I don't apply any one standard of aesthetics to all photos.</p>

<p>John, I actually would not want to have a few days of not having been exposed to photography. I like starting right in the middle of the action rather than hoping for a blank slate. </p>

<p>Ken, I don't think everything has already been photographed. Content, subject, story, new photographs to make are only limited by or made infinite by our imaginations and creativity.</p>

[jgalyon]

<p>Fred, On a day to day basis I don't "hope for a blank slate" either...all I was saying was that it would be very interesting, and I think...a very enlightening experience in regard to what our own vision of photography would be...minus all the influences we've been subjected to for year after year. I wouldn't want to be stuck in limbo in this world where the only creative influence I have comes only from between my own two ears, but I don't think I'd implode if not exposed to the influences of other photographers for a few days.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>I find it nearly impossible to reach a mental state where I fancy that I'm experiencing one of those classics, John, in the same way that they were experienced when they first caused the impact they did. I can't unring that bell, forget who Weston is or Adams is and just <em>see</em> those images entirely in a vacuum.<br /><br />Happily I agree with Fred: not everything has been photographed. It's not so much that this pleases me for my own photography's sake, but because I know I'll still get to see new things for as long as I care to seek out and enjoy others' works. There's no question that my enjoyment (or jadedness) in looking at and making photographs is hugely influenced by the other images I've seen. Can't not be.</p>

[swilson]

<p>

<p>I belonged to a group that did weekly photo contests, with different themes. Every one got to judge the photos both ranking it and leaving a comment if they wished. One wee the theme was to take a photograph in the style of Ansel Adams. The people who ran the contest put in a photo that Adam’s had done, making it look like it was a normal entry, the idea was to see what kind of comments it got. Note during the comments and voting you can’t see how others are voting or what their comments are.<br>

A number of people recognized the photo and said as such, but the people who did not recognize it mostly said it was one of the best if not this best. I know the story would have been better if it has gotten poor scores and comments, but it in fact did great.</p>

</p>

[cmitchell]

<p>I have to agree with Matt and Fred that not everything has been photographed. Photography is still too young. I think there are artists out there that we haven't seen before and they'll photograph things in ways we haven't seen before. I have to believe that anyway.</p>

[jeremy jackson]

<p>Hi John, I teach psychology, research methodology and statistics and we teach students very early on about confirmation bias and double-blind experiments.</p>

<p>The upshot is that ratings of work are practically worthless as measures of quality when the rater knows who is responsible for the work. A basic fact of science I'm afraid.</p>

<p>But being famous, respected, etc., is only roughly correlated with a person's photography. Contribution to the field, service, personality, relationships with important people, luck, etc., all play a massive role.</p>

<p>I have actually been involved in situations where a photographer has not been advanced because their work is too good. The other photographers were afraid that he would show them up! Such is life. JJ</p>

[jtk]

<p>Like a prehistoric version of Jeremy J, I taught psychology, research methodology, and statistics...and I taught a psych course that was centered on projected superb-technical-quality B&W slides of work of photographers who achieved their gallery-fame in the Sixties.</p>

<p>Unlike JJ, I think "quality" is a non-factor when evaluating our great photo ancestors. They were all high enough "quality," whatever that is, if we remember them. BTW, it's not proper psych research methodology to use a loaded term like that without defining it :-) (not meant harshly)</p>

<p>My students responded to images with various emotional statements (which we explored at length). They were in their twenties, so had a hard time expressing emotions with the subtlety and precision that they and I undoubtedly can today, 42 years more complicated :-)</p>

<p>I particularly like Matt Lauer's comment: "I can't unring that bell, forget who Weston is or Adams is and just <em>see</em> those images entirely in a vacuum." However, Weston still excites me and Adams doen't. HCB: I couldn't relate for years, but now that somebody is finally printing his work properly sized (big), I get it.</p>

[jgalyon]

<p>Hey guys and gals...I hope I didn't give the impression that I believe that everything has been photographed ...I'd just like to have been one of the pioneers of so many different genres of photography, whether it be Cartier-Bresson shooting street photography, or Mann Ray photographing abstractions...or to have walked in the shoes of any of the f/64 photographers that did so much to promote photography as a fine art. Thanks for all the great input. Now...to read more.</p>

[jeremy jackson]

<p>So John, you don't know what quality is ("whatever that is") but you think it's a non-factor. Do you think blorifkinits (what ever that is) is a non-factor as well? (not meant harshly) :) JJ</p>

[KenPapai]

<blockquote>

<p><em>Ken, I don't think everything has already been photographed. Content, subject, story, new photographs to make are only limited by or made infinite by our imaginations and creativit</em>y.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I appreciate that and understand that.</p>

<p>I didn't know a single pro photographer's work, outside of CREEM magazine until I was well into my 20s. My omly influence were the rock & roll photogs from Circus and Creem and the Model Rail Roaders from those magazines. Cheers!</p>

[lizard]

<p>I love many of Ansel Adams' images (for example), but I have to admit that there are many that I wish someone would explain to me what's special about them, because I can't see it. Since I'm an amateur, I assume the problem is me, but I WOULD love to know what I'm supposed to be seeing that I don't:)</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Yeah, I'm sure that they (the classics) are all 3/3 rating pictures....<br>

They're not even original, why nowadays you see pictures like that all the time!</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Actually, JDM makes a good point.</p>

<p>I'd find it interesting -- rather than talking in the abstract about works of Ansel Adams or Edward Weston that wouldn't be rated well by some people here -- if they would link to one or two of those photos they think aren't worthy of a high rating and say why.</p>

[jtk]

<p><strong>Jeremy Jackson sez:</strong> <em>" So John, you don't know what quality is ("whatever that is") but you think it's a non-factor."</em><br>

Yes, absolutely. You didn't even hint at what "quality" means to you (Dmax? subtle? nicely mounted? no dust spots? in focus?)... so it couldn't mean anything to anybody else. QED</p>

<p> </p>

[mark_loader]

<p>Hi, folks. John, JDM, Fred, Christine...seem to be running into you guys a lot lately...short story time; I'm 53, handsome, charismatic...modesty forbids me going any further but you get the idea? I've been into photography all my life but have only got moving with this passion 3 years ago. Hey, I never said I was bright! I've seen books and pictures by the greats and yeah, like wow, man, but you know what? The images that floor me are taken by...wait for it...people like YOU. That's right, YOU, buddy. And YOU, lady. I open a magazine and see a photo and go "Whoaaah" and then I see it was taken by Mary-Jane Sackbutt, a homemaker from Lee's Summit, Missouri or Peoria, Illinois or Boise, Idaho or Dry Gulch, Arizona. Just ordinary folks who share this passion. And now teenagers...TEENAGERS for crying out loud...with pics that will blow you away. Have you heard of the UK's Lara Jade or Canada's Joey can't remember-his-surname? Both only 19 but their work is sensational. Perhaps our new inspiration/role models are on this very site..or the other one that starts with "F"...or your neighbour even...is this some kind of golden age for photography...or what? love from Downunder, Mark</p>

[jeremy jackson]

<p>John, you missed the logic. If you don't know what quality is (you said you didn't know what it means right), how do you know it's a non-factor?</p>

<p>And why would I want to hint at what quality means to me? You didn't hint at what hint means to you. How do I know what you mean by hint unless you tell me? In fact, what do you mean by absolutely, you, didn't, even and means? Now that I think about it, if we use your reasoning, I have no idea what you meant in your post at all. Can you explain what you meant by every word you used in your post so that I can know what you meant by what you said?</p>

<p>I meant by quality what it says in the dictionary. That's why I did not put quotation marks around it. </p>

<p>But let's not argue about this OK. I was just trying to say that judgments about how good an image is are highly influenced by knowing about who made the image. That's why judgments need to be made blind. Now, as psychologists and methodologists, I'm sure we can agree on that. Cheers, JJ</p>

[mizore]

<p>One of the things about the classics is that people do learn from them. Some people take off on them and go beyond what the original photographer did, but most of the average writing/photography/art is a mismash of what's cool this year, which is influenced by what we've all seen.</p>

<p>People can be dinged for being better than the club/campus/bar average. What matters in the long run is whether things stay news, as Ezra Pound put it, and that's something we can't know in our own times.</p>

<p>I used to worry a lot about that, but decided to like what I liked now and let the future take care of things, which it generally does if the past is any indication. We can learn how to see better, to understand how this effect works, but I think the best people have tended to be very opinionated about what they thought was good (and some of the worst, too, just not as articulate about their loves and hates). </p>

<p>Very hard to make blind judgments -- we learn how to appreciate art from looking at art and thinking about it. I don't think someone who never saw a photograph before would have a better sense of it than someone who'd seen museum exhibits and worked through <em>Arnheim's Visual Perception</em>. I've been able to recognize painters by style; I suspect that people very immersed in the photo world would also be able to know who did what fairly quickly.</p>

<p>I'd almost go as far as to say that there are no innocent eyes ever, not more than there are innocent readers. Various people at various times have typed up copies of The Yearling and The Painted Bird and submitted them to NYC publishers and thought that the point of their experiments was that NYC editors didn't recognize good work. I suspect that what they learned was NYC editors know how to do searches and figure out that the people sending in this stuff are either insane or creepy and a polite impersonal rejection is the wisest course. The times for these works is embedding in them -- nobody would write precisely in that way today (most screeners in NYC publishing are extremely well-read book junkies).</p>

[johnmyers]

<p>I'm not fooled by a persons name when viewing a photograph. It doesn't matter at all who took it, I know what I like and I know what speaks to me. If a famous photographer doesn't hit the mark, so be it. If a student or unknown photographer hits the mark, so be it.</p>