Is it impossible to make an extraordinarily bad photograph?

[dan_south]

<p>I enjoyed Alan's insightful comment about cropping. Very clever, indeed!</p>

[mhahn]

<p>You'll have to take my word for it, but the attached picture had the perfect (or perfectly imperfect) average of "!," but it was based on only two ratings and now the rating no longer shows.</p>

<p>How about a few more ratings of "1," so that my perfect rating might show again?</p>

<p>Forgot to attach the URL to the picture. Here it is: <a href="/photo/10101335">http://www.photo.net/photo/10101335</a></p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Extraordinary bad and good photos are at the ends of the belt curve. Both possible, but rather very difficult...</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>Is it impossible to make an extraordinarily bad photograph?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>SMS fails, but the closest is ROTFL<br>

8-}</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>One might also argue that since a prerequisite of being a photographer is the ability to find beauty in everything, there can be no such thing as a "1". </p>

<p>Leslie, you mean bell curve? </p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Yeah, bell, Michael.</p>

<p>And I think most here just mean bad, not *extraordinary* bad...</p>

[MichaelChang]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Extraordinary bad and good photos are at the ends of the bell curve."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I highly recommend this article:<br>

<a href="http://www.bchrma.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/rb-the-best-and-the-rest.pdf">http://www.bchrma.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/rb-the-best-and-the-rest.pdf</a></p>

<p> <br>

The research suggests that the world is dominated by superstars, then there's the rest of us. In other words the bell curve is not at all an accurate representation of performance, rather it's the power distribution curve (Pareto). See fig. 1 in the article. <br>

</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>I should have added my take on the article:</p>

<p>The power distribution curve also makes sense in (and applies to) the arts, at least by my observation of performance arts. Photography and other forms of visual arts shouldn't be exceptions to the rule but are able to sneak under the bar by its difficulty in consensus so any discussion becomes argumentative in nature. </p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Michael,</p>

<p>My definition, or what I'd consider an *extraordinary* bad photo is a photo with mistakes. One mistake, for me, wouldn't be extraordinary. The photo has to have, say, three (or more), unless it's completely under/over exposed. And, of course, they (mistakes) are weighted</p>

<p>Possible mistakes:</p>

<ol>

<li>exposure</li>

<li>focus</li>

<li>composition</li>

<li>timing</li>

<li>color</li>

<li>dof</li>

<li>content</li>

<li>emotional impact</li>

</ol>

<p>I know most don't break it down like that, people rarely do. They just rate them 1-7 or something...</p>

<p> </p>

[MichaelChang]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"My definition, or what I'd consider an *extraordinary* bad photo is a photo with mistakes."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Leslie, your definition violates the premise in the arts - there can be no mistakes. :-) <br>

<br>

The power distribution curve suggests the vast majority of photos are 1's and 2's. I'm inclined to agree. The popular consensus of majority being average (3-4) was perpetrated by <a href="http://philip.greenspun.com/">Philip Greenspun</a> since the site's beginning. It becomes more apparent if you rate ones knowledge of photography on the same scale - the vast majority knows very little. <br>

<br>

Rating by the power distribution curve will necessitate an inverse log scale since raters need the finer gradation between ones and twos. </p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>I'm inclined to think most people don't bother with why/how they don't like something, therefore it's much easier to give a low rating. Bad is bad, but not *extraordinary* bad imo. People just don't bother differentiating... </p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>And "mistake" might not be the best wording, sure. I just mean the elements of a photograph and how they affect the photograph totality. It highly difficult to articulate and weight, which also depends on the type of photography in question...</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Giving a descriptive of what you like and don't like in a photo and why is more helpful to the shooter than a number. Other than for ego of course.</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>Julie, maybe the explanation is that it still is possible to have an emotional reaction to a bad photograph. You obviously had a bond with the dog, and even though the photograph is poorly composed and out of focus, it reminds you of the relationship you had (have).</p>

[NetR]

It is impossible to spell daguerreotype, but that's about it.

[Julie H]

<p>Ross Marks, things *really* get ugly when you have to say/pronounce dag-oooo-er-O? dagger-O? dag-werry-O? (breakfast of champions).</p>

<p>Leslie, your list of boo-boos are only boo-boos if we can be sure they *are* boo-boos (have you ever seen Sally Mann's gorgeous wet-plate collodion work?). Not to mention that boo-boos are inherently interesting and, even if inadvertently, interestingly expressive of the goings-on of the living photographer.</p>

<p>Matt Laur's suggestion, from the very first comment, above, has given me a clue to my own personal idea of 1-photography. He mentioned "some "lifestyle" shots that accompany the ads for obviously scammy dietary supplements." If you take that to its essence, to its ultimate perfection, you get the blackish-whitish-Asianish manish-woman (or womanish-man) with brownish-blondish-reddish hair and brownish-greenish-blue-ish eyes, lounging in off-white (pristine) clothing with no noticeable styling (but yet not <em>not</em> stylish), on a tannish floor or rug against a whitish background. This he-ish she or she-ish he is sort of smiling (but not smirking) and has, no identifying marks or bumps or characteristics of any kind whatsoever.</p>

<p>If you look at these (technically perfect, Leslie) pictures, you might as well have taken a used wad of bubble-gum and stuck it directly on your brain cells. All information, stimulation, provocation ... everything has been extracted from this "image." The medium of photography has been totally and thoroughly castrated and, in looking at this picture, you're voluntarily lobotomizing yourself.</p>

<p>(The pictures often, as Matt noted, accompany ads for medications. The next three pages are warnings of side effects, which you, having been already lobotomized, won't even notice.)</p>

<p>**************</p>

<p>Side note about the use of 1 and the bell curve: I think we like to keep some ammo in reserve for those unspeakable horrors that we suspect may arrive at any moment and where will we be if we've already fired off our biggest cannons? One must never believe that the worst is already before us. One must keep our powder dry and our 1s in reserve for ... (shudder)</p>

<p>Finally, it is a tradition that I must frequently include quotes in my posts, so I end with this from Chuck Close:<br>

.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"[Photography] is the easiest medium in which to be competent. Anybody can be a marginally capable photographer, but it takes a lot of work to learn to become even a competent painter. Now, having said this, I think while photography is the easiest medium in which to be competent, it is probably the hardest one in which to develop an idiosyncratic personal vision. It's the hardest medium in which to separate yourself from all these other people who are doing reasonably good stuff and to find a personal voice, your own and not someone else's. A recognized signature style of photography is an incredibly difficult thing to achieve.</p>

<p>"It always amazes me that just when I think that there's nothing left to do in photography and that all permutations and possibilities have been exhausted, someone comes along and yanks it out of this kind of amateur status, and makes it as profound and moving and as formally interesting as any other medium. It's like pushing something heavy uphill. Photography's not an easy medium. It is finally, perhaps the hardest of them all."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>.</p>

<p>[John A ("Sounds like a recipe for actually getting creative!") and Steve J. Murray, you are both onto my ulterior motive in this thread ... ]</p>

[colin carron]

<p>I once got a 1:1 for a photo taken in Lucca in Northen Italy. The shot happened to include a 'Rainbow Flag' which in the US tends to be a symbol of Gay Pride. In Italy it is often used as a symbol of Peace and Internationalism.<br /> So maybe a 1:1 may be reserved for those photos which we actively dislike for one reason or another. I am guessing in this case the rater took exception to what he understood to be a gay pride symbol. I can't imagine he had a downer on World Peace but I suppose it is possible.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

 

<blockquote>

<p>Leslie, your list of boo-boos are only boo-boos if we can be sure they *are* boo-boos (have you ever seen Sally Mann's gorgeous wet-plate collodion work?). Not to mention that boo-boos are inherently interesting and, even if inadvertently, interestingly expressive of the goings-on of the living photographer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, some are more technical, some are less, and some not. And they are all weighted, meaning depending on the photo type etc...And, say, underexpose 1/2 to 2 stops is different than 3 stops off. I could go on, but it's complicated enough not to. Mis focusing could be obvious (or not)...composition and emotional impact, less so, and are subjective etc...And they could are related, or not...Again, they are elements of a photograph which could be judged on...And they are too complicated to discuss on an online forum w/o concrete examples ,at least for me... </p>

<p> </p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Can anyone point to an example of an extraordinarily bad photograph? </p>

<p>A violin learner will need to practice for hundreds of hours before being able to play a single sustained note without sounding like a sow being butchered. In this way one can say that all beginner violinists are extraordinarily bad performers. </p>

<p>By contrast, anyone can take a camera out of the box and take a decent photo with no more effort than learning to program your DVR and taking a bad photo really takes effort, even for a beginner. </p>

<p>If photography was judged by the same standard as a violin performance, then one can say the power distribution curve applies and the vast majority of photographs are no more than a sow's ear. If one judges photography by pop music standards where a couple of guitar chords to catchy lyrics can make a hit, then the bell curve applies and everyone's a photographer and there can be no extraordinarily bad photographs. </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>A 1 and a 7 are I think more dismissable by the photographer than numbers in between. The latter are questionable but acceptable as subjective critiques made without any suggested criteria or knowledge of the rater, whereas the 1 and the 7 are dismissable without any further thought. However, a rater's well considered comments can make all of them more palatable and even formative.</p>

[frode]

<p>I think the 1s images are those that are so uninteresting that you have not bothered to dwell on them long enough that you have given them any points.</p>

[thomas_k.]

<p>Julie,<br>

I feel that I receive my own "1" when I show a photograph to someone and his/hers only reaction is a question: "What is it?". This simple question brings me down immediately, it's a "1"shaped dagger right thru my artistic heart. Next few minutes when I'm trying to explain in words my photograph, feel like hell. In moments like that, I believe that I am capable of creating extraordinarily bad photographs.</p>

[frode]

<p>Thomas, it will of course depend on how the question is posed, but a "What is it?" might as well be a positive sign of interest and curiosity. If so, I would not interpret it as a "1".</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>If I were to judge photographs between 1-7, I 'd think 99% would not be 1 and 7. They'd be 3, 4 or 5 most likely...although I tend to skew more positively. </p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>Bad pictures are not the ones people ask about. Not saying anything is how I show scorn. I'm grinding my teeth. If you can't say anything good… .<br>

Ranking is idiotic for the judge(s) and the picture. <br>

Trying for novelty or thinking too hard about what to do with a subject causes badness.<br>

I shoot in urban alleys that stink so much the JPEG's smell. I get <em>looks</em>. Just thought I'd let you know. This picture really stinks.</p>

<div></div>