Boring

[johne37179]

<p>BTW. I just did upload a couple of WIP images. These are very much "let's see if this works?" images. I'd love to have those here take a shot at them. I know none of you are shy.</p>

[photo5]

<p>I think the heart of this conversation is that everyone has different tastes in what stimulates them. And now that everyone and their dog has a digital camera, and calls themselves a "photographer", the overall content of images has changed. Changed for the worse? It's in the eye of the beholder.</p>

<p>I can post a photo here and say this is a recent photo I took, and I really enjoy it. I can look at it again and again and get pleasure from looking at it. But someone else can walk over and look at it, and say it's boring. That's OK with me, because Art is not something that can fit into a "good" category or a "bad" category. Art just "is" and that's about it the way I see it.</p>

<p>Most artists make art to please themselves. If you don't like it, tough. If you do, great!</p>

[joshroot]

<p>While of course personal tastes make a difference in a discussion like this, Robert, Bill, and a few others have hit upon what is probably a major reason for such a feeling for a lot of people.</p>

<p>In it's early days, Photo.net was comprised of people with enough skill and technology to both shoot photos AND be able to upload them to the internet. Gear was expensive, scanners were required, extensive computer knowledge (and an internet connection) was a must. So the people who posted images here had a far higher chance of being pros or advanced amateurs. Even in some of the middle years digital SLR's (and image processing programs) were out of the reach of those who weren't particularly dedicated to photography.</p>

<p>In subsequent years, high end digital cameras have come down significantly in price, the price-performance ratio has gotten much better, computers (and knowledge to use them) are ubiquitous, high speed internet has become common, and free/cheap image processing programs are easily aquired. All of this adds up to a lot more people deciding that they might be interested in photography as a hobby. It's one thing to say "For under $1000 I can get into this new hobby" and it's another to say "For $5000 (or more) I can get into this hobby".</p>

<p>Thus, you have got a lot of new people interested in photography. They are going through all the phases that we all go through. Not really knowing what they like or dislike, not really having a style, trying to learn the technical aspects, copying work they see others doing, and so on. In addition, you've got people who aren't as driven to learn and improve as you might have had in the past. Not to say that anyone is more or less deserving to be posting here, Photo.net is open and available for anyone interested in photography. But it is hard to deny that when the bar is higher (money, skills, knowledge) to getting photos online, as it was in the past, you are going to get people who are more driven and dedicated than you do if things are easy. Dedicated people are more likely to put in the work to improve and move past "beginner" to "experienced".</p>

<p>What's nice is that, while there are some obvious differences if you are comparing Photo.net today to yesteryear, the advantage of all these new people being involved is that some percentage of them WILL turn into obsessed photo-nerds like the rest of us. They will get better and upload interesting unique photos that inspire the rest of us. Circle of photo life I guess. Sunrise sunset and all that.</p>

<p>Overall though, I much prefer it now to the olden days. While I have fond memories of the earlier years on PN, I like to think of photography as being something that improves as a whole as more and more people are involved. So it excites me to see a new person uploading and asking questions in the beginner forum as much as it excites me to see one of our long time masters uploading their latest images.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>Josh: I would guess that your analysis is spot on. I do think it may well be an evolution of the audience. What that doesn't account for is what has happened to some of those early posters who posted outstanding work by any standard. I'd hate think the worst and suppose that many have just moved on.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p><em>"Does anyone think the image content on photo.net has become boring? "</em></p>

<p>I wonder if you find cat photos as *boring* (and unviewable, all of 'em) as I find them? It's all subjective John, I hope you already know that basic fact after all these years.</p>

<p>I think most of us, esp. you, are very capable of excellent work (and show it here often enough). I would also hazard to guess that photo.net is often NOT the first place of choice one would run to to post that awesome, excellent, but nonboring susnset or nude. ;-)</p>

[johne37179]

<p>Don't let that fur ball get caught in your throat. I hope your thin skin gets better. </p>

[joshroot]

<blockquote>

<p>What that doesn't account for is what has happened to some of those early posters who posted outstanding work by any standard. I'd hate think the worst and suppose that many have just moved on.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It does account for such absences in that some percentage of those people are looking for a place that is more like the old photo.net and less like what it has become. So they are probably on another site if they are still active on the internet. I can't say that I agree with them, but everybody is looking for something different out of a site like PN. So we're never going to be able to satisfy everyone.</p>

<p>That having been said, the fact is that life changes. People give up old hobbies, find new ones, make new friends, have kids (and thus less time) get bored with internet forums, and so on. This is pretty natural and normal and I think any honest admin of a long lived internet community would tell you the same thing. In fact, I think one of the most surprising things is that you have so many people on PN that have been here for 5, 10, or even 15 years. While, as I said, PN can't be everything to everyone, the fact that the site has been so important to so many talented people for such a long time really says something. Hell, look at me. My first posts in 1998 are stuff like asking where I should go to college, 14 years later and here I am running the place.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>Thanks John -- appreciate your good natured (and free loading/uncalled for) insult. Do you need a loan to join here and then be a a full fledged, insult-giving but paying PN member? Seemingly, you're so high & mighty that a little cash your way would prove beneficial...</p>

[johne37179]

<p>Josh, I think PN serves a wonderful purpose and does a great job of it. That we can have a discussion like this alone is of great value. Back in the day when I was a working photographer in Seattle, the local working photographers, art and creative directors used to get together for lunch on Friday and have these kind of discussions. Frequently those discussions would continue from lunch well into the evening. The only real chance to show our work to a larger community was in the annual Seattle Art Directors show. <br>

I like the discourse and have seen some of the best photography of my life here on PN. I have also met a few photographers here that I have become friends with and actually traveled to meet.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>Ken: I have been a paying member in the past, but found I wasn't taking advantage of it. Uncalled for? Surely, you jest.</p>

[zlight_b]

<p>John, I suppose photo.net is what it is. the onus is up to you and us to make it what we think it ought to be or could be</p>

[mbkissel]

<p>Most every type of forum in which I have ever participated seems to go through a growing/maturing stage, very analogous to courtship, marriage and divorce.<br>

The dating years are spent with wonder and amazement finding all sort of interesting people and things to discuss.<br>

The married years are spent getting into that comfort zone; finding the circle of friends that interest, and weeding out those that don't.<br>

The divorce years are spent doing meaningless things like deleting one's personal web history in a defiant "I'll show them" attitude. Or the "I can't believe you don't see how great I am. The world must surely be full of idiots. Who do they think they are?"<br>

Everyone has something to bring to the table, even if that table has been seated many times before. I'd like to think I'm smart enough to recognize that when it's before me. The reality is I likely fail miserably at doing so.</p>

[will_daniel1]

<p>Wow -- this thread has turned quite philosophical. Anyone can click on my name and see that I don't post photos, other than an occasional No Words Forum post. My reason for that is simple: I know that my photos are technically OK and lots of <em><strong>non-photographers </strong></em>describe them as "beautiful," but other photographers would probably describe them as boring. I don't feel the need to subject my work to the critique of other photographers. It was bad enough that my publisher submitted review copies of my recent book, <em>James River Reflections</em> and I was worried about bad reviews. But the reviews are coming in great. I am very pleased with that, and with sales of the book. Professional book reviewers are calling my work "beautiful" while professional photographers probably would not. You can see whose opinion I value more.</p>

<p>I started lurking here in 2008 to "re-learn" photography. I have a degree in it, and like the OP have been involved in the photo industry since the 1960s, but I slept through the transition to digital. As a newspaper editor I was lucky to have people who worked through the digital transition for me, but unlucky in that I learned little about the process until I was no longer the editor. P.net got me through that learning curve.</p>

<p>Here's a "boring" sunrise photo as book cover. Anyone who wants to see all of the boring photos can go to <a href="http://www.willdaniel.com/james">www.willdaniel.com/james</a>.</p>

<p><img src="http://www.willdaniel.com/james_river_reflections_front.jpg" alt="" width="322" height="250" /></p>

[steve m smith]

<p>Everything you are not interested in is boring.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Will, thanks. You may be getting to part of the essence of the difference between what is liked (what's popular) and what is good. I've always thought that good photos are what expert photographers might generally agree is good. (That's part of it. NOT all of it.) And likable or pleasing or popular photos are what sell.</p>

<p>For me, it wouldn't be a matter of whose opinion I value more. I value both. It would be a matter of what context I was considering the opinion in.</p>

[will_daniel1]

<p>Good points, Fred. And I do value both types of opinions -- just one more than the other. Like all of us here, when another photographer compliments my work I consider it the highest honor. That's the artistic side of what I do. The business side of it is getting those book critics to like it and the general public buying it.</p>

[alan_zinn]

<blockquote>

<p><br />"Ansel taught that the photograph was taken between your ears long before the camera was in your hands."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>John,<br>

To literally pre-visualize the outcome would seem hardly worth the effort. I want the picture to reveal itself to me over time. I am critical of AA and the like for their reductionist formal approach. Not their technical prowess. There is a place for both but I wouldn't argue too strongly for either. Wanting to "see what things look like photographed" as the saying goes, and hoping to be astonished by what I didn't consciously notice is what drives me.</p><div></div>

[johne37179]

<p>I do think this thread has taken on a life of its own in quite a different direction from my original question. Will Daniel clearly knows how to take a frequently trite subject -- a sunrise and make it not boring. <br>

I never meant to suggest that subjects were boring -- but the approach to them tends to get that way when it is repeated endlessly. Will makes the point very well with a fresh approach to the subject.<br>

Alan, I never found Adam's creative approach to be the least reductionist or formal. Quite the opposite. He was always looking for a new vision and trying to figure out how to bring it about with the photographic tools available. He was formalistic about the chemistry and mechanics of reproducing the same print time after time and the ability to get the exact result he expected from the processing of film and paper. But, his creative process was anything but formalized. Ansel understood the process well enough that it would be very difficult for him to be "astonished" by what came out of the process.</p>

[will_daniel1]

Thanks, John. I'm feelin' the love now!

[alan_zinn]

<p><br />John,<br>

I should have said AA and followers are noted for their reductionist (Modernist), abstract qualities of <em>form.</em> As I understand it his pre-visualization credo is meant strictly to apply to optimizing the negative using the Zone System. It is a mistake to think he meant it for anything beyond that. AA experts may shoot that supposition down! Others in his milieu like Minor White, or Imogen Cunningham seem more creative to me. Creativity is definitely not measured by the extent that pre-deliberation is employed. </p>

<p>I use an ingenious Zone System for the imagination:<br>

iZone Zero: Hat on backwards but lens cap on. <br>

iZone Ten: "That's OK Baby, maybe you were just trying too hard."</p>

[johne37179]

<p>What Ansel meant by revisualization is the conception in the mind of the finished image -- before even thinking about picking up the camera. Ansel was fortunate to spend most of the summers of his life (and much other time) in Yosemite. His wife's (Virginia Best) family once owned the hotel on the floor of the park. When the park was formed, their home on the valley floor was grandfathered into the park and Ansel and Virginia (and numerous guests) spent many happy times there. I remember going into the field with Ansel to a particular location in the park to take a picture. The location would be wonderful, but Ansel would not take a picture or even set up the camera. I asked him why and he would respond that in his image there was a cloud on the horizon or some other thing like that. The location on that day did not match his vision -- so he took no picture. Ansel knew in his mind what the final product he was producing looked like. If he could not get it that day, he would come back another time.<br>

Ansel never did any burning or dodging of his images while printing. He had highly customized his enlarger -- replacing the lamp house and condenser with a series of small lamps connected to individual rheostats. He would adjust the output for each of those bulbs to accomplish what otherwise would be done with burning or dodging. He would record the settings, exposure and processing details in his notebook. That meant that anyone following those instructions and using his equipment could perfectly reproduce the look he wanted from the print. If you had that equipment today you could produce an Ansel Adams' original.<br>

Ansel's creative effort all took place before he took the picture. He knew his location, equipment and photographic limits of the entire process so well, that he could use those tools like a painter uses a brush to create his final vision as a print. Ansel had gone through the discovery process we all do so thoroughly and his understanding was so complete that the camera, lens, film, chemicals, paper, etc., all became nearly invisible to him. He used them like a fine musician uses the instrument. Those things become lost in the mind as the music flows from the mind of the musician to the ear of the listener and any consciousness of the process is lost to the artist.<br>

Ansel was like that producing a photograph. It went from his mind to the eye of the viewer in an almost unconscious process -- even if he wrote it all down, like the notes on a sheet of music.</p>

<p> </p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"Wanting to "see what things look like photographed" as the saying goes, and hoping to be astonished by what I didn't consciously notice is what drives me."</p>

<p>The spontaneous moment...the discovery of the unexpected a fresh realization where the emotion and imagination goes to another place. Aways seeking the unexpected amongst the expected a journey of realization to an undiscovered place.</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>Allen H. Exactly! Like poets, musicians, painters - seekers. <br>

John, thanks for excellent picture of AA. </p>

[tholte]

<p>To me, the description of what Ansel Adams did to create his images was boring. Looking at most of his photos is not boring. </p>

[johne37179]

<p>You know Tim, to some life is full of boring things from old factories to flowers to fireworks. I know, I grew up in a very boring Milwaukee.</p>