The Debate # 1

[DawsonPointers]

<p>Who is more creative? Photographers of still life and nudes generally are engaged in all aspects of creating the photo whereas landscape, travel and other photographers have far less control. Does that mean that they (we) are less creative?</p>

[Matt Laur]

I think it depends on whether they're using film or digital.

[vrankin]

<p>The different areas of photographic work you mention merely require different kinds of creativity. To render a photo of something like Half Dome or slot canyons in a way that won't be a cliche must be highly creative. Where I live in the Midwest with much flatland and fewer geologic features than the west for instance, it takes a high degree of creativity to make a really compelling landscape image.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Creativity has much less to do with the subject matter or subject than with the mindset of the photographer and his approach. Don't worry about one type of photographic subject versus the other in this sense. </p>

[philipward]

Those with Leicas and Holgas think they are.

[JDMvW]

<p>Arthur's got it, I think.</p>

<p>There are hack portraitists and nude-shooters, just as there are in every other field of human endeavor.</p>

<p>The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_Law">90% rule</a> applies to all human action anyway. The best are the best, whatever they shoot.</p>

<p>Although I have to admit that it helps to love the subject matter you're photographing, and there are many examples of that here in the portfolios at P.net.</p>

[dhbebb]

 

<p><em>Who is more creative? Photographers of still life and nudes generally are engaged in all aspects of creating the photo whereas landscape, travel and other photographers have far less control. Does that mean that they (we) are less creative?</em><br>

Both groups in fact have roughly the same degree of control, the major difference is that studio photographers can physically move lights, background and subjects around, whereas a landscape photographer's only method of controlling lighting is time - specifically, total dedication to getting up early, being in the right place at the right time and accepting that some days a great effort will go totally unrewarded!</p>

 

[colin carron]

<p>I too agree with Arthur. Creativity isn't primarily about subject matter.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>I think it depends on whether they're using film or <a id="itxthook0" rel="nofollow" href="../casual-conversations-forum/00YNzG?unified_p=1">digital</a>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Once that's determined, the next criteria is Nikon or Canon.</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>why does this question look like a trap?</p>

<p>OK, let say im just paranoid.. so heres my answer;</p>

<p>any photographer man or woman, whatever the subject, the camera, the film, the digital, the mac, the pc, the nikon, the canon... can be creative or not. it is not related to the subject; you are or you are not a creative type of person.</p>

 

[stp]

<p>I think David Bebbington has it right. Some folks consider landscape / nature photography as walking around "snapping pretty pictures." In fact, some landscape / nature photographer may approach it that way. But others take great effort to find their image: up before dawn and on location before the sun comes up (or after the sun has gone down) at a place that has been scouted previously, appropriate lenses chosen (and if using film the appropriate film has been selected), and then the search for 1) an aesthetically pleasing landscape and 2) a portion of the landscape that captures the spirit or feeling or essence of the place, and once a possibility is found and the lens has been chosen, the composition within the frame is selected, the aperture and corresponding shutter speed appropriate for the scene is chosen, the decision to use a tripod for maximum stability/sharpness versus handholding for greater flexibility in moving around has been made, and the photo is taken. Certainly describing that process as "snapping pretty pictures" is inadequate, and it has required a great deal of thought, judgement, and creativity. A good eye and open mind are indispensable, and a little luck from time to time is greatly appreciated. I admire those who have the creative ability to totally control light and subject in the studio, and I admire those who have the patience and tenacity to find what they cannot control in the field.</p>

[jim_j2]

<p>Well said Stephen!</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"why does this question look like a trap?"</em></p>

<p>Patrick, because it is a trap. John Rowsell has been dissatisfied with the level of discourse in the Photo of the Week forum, so he said there that he was going to start debates in the Philosophy of Photography forum to try to get regular participants in the Photo of the Week discussion to move away from that forum and waste their time on the debates he sets up instead. Ironically, this thread was moved from Philosophy of Photography to Casual Conversations.</p>

<p>Here are two of John's relevant posts from <a href="../photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=12502914">last week's POW forum</a>:</p>

 

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=6412124">John Rowsell</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub1.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, March 12, 2011; 06:37 P.M.</p>

<p>Just another pissing match for the few geezers who regularly comment. Sad, given the photos of the week normally have merit beyond instigating urination.<br />Maybe POW should stand form Prostate of the Week.<br />Paul, I really like your photo and it does deserve recognition.</p>

 

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=6412124">John Rowsell</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub1.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, March 13, 2011; 08:08 P.M.</p>

<p>Ok. I've figured this out. There appears to be a deficit in that those who <strong><em>need</em></strong> to be heard can be heard debating for the sake of argument. From here on forward, I commit to posting a weekly forum called 'The Debate'. It may not be on the front page of Photo.net, but I hope that you debaters will stop causing the collateral damage you inflict on the POW just for the sake of argument. Look in the</p>

<h1>Philosophy of Photography Forum</h1>

<p>I'll post every Sunday, If that's alright with you (of course, that is debatable)<br />Regards, John</p>

 

[john_a5]

<p>And maybe the most interesting, to me, is it comes from someone who doesn't seen to participate in that forum and who still, to my knowledge, has never added anything constructive to it.......</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Well I think we've figured this one out.</p>

<p>If you don't like a forum, that doesn't mean you have to put trivial questions on another one.</p>