Am I really that bad of a photographer?

[Christal1664882414]

<p>Stephen.....a wonderful image.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>Excellent advice from Fred G:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Chrystal, because I think a negative critique would best be done with some nuance, some questioning, some diplomacy so as not to turn off the photographer being critiqued from hearing the critique. Sometimes, negative critique is best when done a little at a time over time. Part of that is to make sure the critic isn't imposing their own view too strongly, but rather making sure one is letting the photographer know they don't seem to be reaching their OWN goals. That is not so easy to do. What I meant was it's hard to be critical of someone's work while also being positive, but with some thought it can be done.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Pin this up next to the advice that you received from Gordon B.</p>

[Christal1664882414]

<p>Daniel......adversity often fosters creativity. I've seen it countless times! This has obviously been true in your case.</p>

<p>Funny.....the NY Times is my home page on my computer, yet I've never looked at the Lens Blog. I certainly will now. I probably am not reading the right kind of stuff. I have gotten countless books out of the library. A recent one was 'Dances with Light' by Darwin Wiggett. It has some beautiful images in the book, but frankly it is of no help at all. There are no details as to shooting conditions, aperture, shutter speed, ISO, what if any filters were used, etc. I can look at all the great work in the world, but at some point I need to know how to achieve that quality of work. Some improvement certainly can come through experimentation and just shooting a lot. But I need more than that......at least to get me to the point where I can figure things out on my own a little better.</p>

<p>Yes, I know what you're saying. I really enjoy images that provide me with some kind of visceral reaction, so I need to strive to create those images. BTW, you don't 'owe' me anything. :-) But I would greatly appreciate any time you would have to look at my images and offer your input. Thank you!</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>Bob. Just curious......to what degree do you think it's possible to learn creativity and originality?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Christal, you didn't ask me this question, and Bob gave you some excellent advice already. But I would like to add my two cents.</p>

<p>I don't think that one can "learn" creativity and originality. If you learn it from someone else, is it really original?</p>

<p>However, you can DEVELOP these skills (as you can any other skill) if you're committed, have the right attitude, and put in some time and effort. What you CAN learn from others is how to free yourself from habitual, limiting behaviors, i.e. behaviors that would tend to make you shoot the same photos over and over again.</p>

<p>My advice, in order of importance:<br /> 1. Accept that you are already original. No one else is like you. Be true to your own vision and preferences. Build confidence in your own unique view of the world..<br /> 2. Always look for your own shot, your own interpretation, your own composition. Shoot what you WANT TO SEE rather than what's popular or trendy. Rather than what gets high ratings. (Bob was right!) The world is full of photographers who stand behind other photographs in order to "get the same shot." Refuse to be one of them. <br /> 3. Shoot regularly. Make time to get out and do it. Even when you have no objective in mind - shoot! Shoot something! Shoot something that appeals to YOUR eye. Creativity is a skill, and practice is important.<br /> 4. Try different things. Take different kinds of photos. Take them in different ways. Try to vary your approach sometimes just to see what will happen. Sometimes it won't work. Learn what you can, revise your plan, and plow ahead energetically, again and again.<br /> 5. Give yourself time. Let your style emerge at its own pace. Don't be in a rush. As long as your are working and reflecting seriously on that work, you are improving.</p>

[shutterbud]

<p>Thanks Christal!<br>

That was taken with the new Canon M and 'kit' lens on my first day of shooting with it. I find the images richer than those from my D5100, which is supposed to have a better sensor. As to critiquing published work, I find myself constantly surprised at the basic editing mistakes I see in even prestigious magazines such as Nat Geo- images which need straightened, cropped or otherwise 'dealt with'. I am astonished that a seemingly Professional Photographer would have the balls to submit thousands of images to an editor when he knows he can only hope for ten of them to be published. That is <strong>not</strong> professional in my opinion! I 'publish' (i.e. post on Flickr or here in a thread) only a tiny percentage of my images- the rest are ignored, though often I cannot bring myself to delete them from my drive until I am backing up the best to a USB; i.e. I have sufficient images to re-assure myself I have 'a good haul' from the last few months. I can see little point in submitting work which is not the best one can produce. If I spend 3-4 hours on the streets and 'publish' 20 images from 2-300 exposures, I'm happy. I delete as I go along, culling the bottom 40%, so if I get a second similar shot I'll delete the weaker one, even if the weak one is pretty good. A good photograph, as we know, is a lot more than 'properly exposed and in focus'. I hate cropping- it feels like I've let the opportunity down, so often I will simply delete an image, no matter how much I like it, if it has to be cropped more than 30% or so, sometimes grimacing and cursing as I do so- there is no point having all these shots online if you can only print them at 5 by 7 inches!<br>

The work on my gallery on p.n is quite old now. My flickr is http://www.flickr.com/photos/95376272@N05/<br>

I would be intrested in your thoughts Christal</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>I think originality and creativity is for the most part drawn out, or "uncovered" by an insightful pedagogue, or in the case of a self-learning process, by some form of self-actualization - if you believe everyone is creative in some way.</p>

<p>Given Christal's high level of musical training in which creativity is integral, all she needs is to translate photography-related aesthetic terms into its musical equivalent. For example, the general aesthetic gradation in photography is the equivalent to the degree of musicality in violin performance. It takes years to play a single note perfectly on a violin which is immediately apparent to an advanced violinist; the same goes with photography in the immediate recognition of high level aesthetics. This, can be learned.</p>

<p>In general, I will discourage photography "courses" in the same way I will discourage going to the local mall to take violin lessons from a teacher of questionable qualifications. The gradation from such a teacher to someone like Dorothy DeLay is night and day; in the same way taking "lessons" from a questionable photography teacher can potentially do more harm than good. </p>

<p>Good teachers will learn *your* language, personality and temperament, and through adaptive pedagogy deliver content in a way that will help you develop immediate felt significance. That's the general difference between teaching and learning - one is what others do to you, the other is what others will help you do for yourself. </p>

 

[jcuknz]

<p>Crystal ... if you stretch 2 and 3 from 5 to 7 you still only get 3 and 4 and unless you intend to be one of the sycophantic hoard they both are good ratings for competant work. I save the high numbers for photographs that really impress me after best part of sixty years of interest. They maybe crap to some but the number is a reflection of my appreciation of the photographer bringing that capture to my attention. They are rarely landscapes or plays with color which sums up my memory of my quick scan across your albums.<br />As far as post processing I have never done HDR as yet but when I finally worked what all the guff was about I realised I had been doing it when needed for ages. Since post processing requires as much attention as camera work you cannot start too soon becuase most of it is simply common sense use of basic tools ... does it look right? OK lets go with it.<br />Time of day .... Golden Hours .... I too take 'record' photos occasionally at the wrong time but they are records for me personally and normally, since I rarely take landscapes the time of day doesn't matter and it is the activity of those in the photo that attracts me as with my visit to Old Faithful a couple of years ago. "Red White and Blue" sums it up although at the same time I was interested in how people were holding their cameras. </p><div></div>

[jcuknz]

<p>Or on a previous visit "Waiting for Old Faithful"</p><div></div>

[shutterbud]

<p>Landscapes are, for me, inherently boring. They need to be pretty special to grab my attention. At least onscreen. Printed well and large then framed properly is another thing entirely. Then we can see where the care and attention went. But even then, a good insect Macro at 16 by 24 inches makes an impression! I find that when I look at a shot which has a person or animal as its subject, I am far more drawn to it. Phot.net does seem to specialise in 'controlled' work, with lots of PP. This is fine of course. But it doesn't do as good a job of capturing the moment, which I feel is the real strength of the medium and often a nice capture is, for me, ruined by prissy or unrealistic doodling on PS. When I look at Christal's work I recognise the time and effort it took to make these images. But they don't really grab me as there is only one thing happening. I can't remember any complexity of composition, any discord or juxtaposition or even inherent comment or irony in the frame. It's like drinking a nice house wine- perfectly decent, churlish to make an issue of it. But what I really want is a complex single malt. I find when I try to take a landscape <em>myself</em>, I sort of go "Erm, ok, here's a bridge. Um... how can I make it look like more than just a bridge? Eeeer...OH! There's a PERSON on the bridge. Let's focus on her!" Which is why I seldom take landscapes</p>

 

[jenkins]

<p>Steve I had a look at your page, you say you first picked up a camera in 2011 and then reached this conclusion about Photoshop?</p>

<p><strong> In the short few months I have been taking pictures I think I have learned a lot and have deleted Photoshop. I want to keep the photography in my photography and am very pp-averse.</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

I don't understand why people have this mentality of separating Photography from the post production, it's all part of the same process. It can be done very well or very badly with many shades in between. It's a very odd conclusion to reach after only two years. I would advise you to reinstall it and take some classes, it takes a lot longer to realise the full potential of Photoshop and exploit it fully than it does to grasp camera exposure.<strong><br /></strong></p>

<p> </p>

[shutterbud]

<p>Did you look at my Flickr page Simon? I feel my pn page is not really representative anymore. I am not willing to put the time in to learn PS. I really don't think it's needed and in fact am bordering on ideologically opposed to it. Silkypics, Irfanview and Zoombrowser do all I need. I try to spend as little time as possible on PP and in my Dali folder on Flickr I made a point of taking only one prime for one body to Yunnan for ten days, only shooting in JPG and doing NO pp, except straightening and sharpening when downsampling to upload. In my opinion the photography did not suffer from this at all. In fact, I was very proud of the results- I felt it was a significant right of passage and really hit home to me how good a modern digital camer is. I feel I am getting far better as a photographer by adopting this method. Sharpening eyes seperately from the rest of face and all that, is really not my bag. I am certain there are members who do things like this so effectively I am unaware of it, but, life's too short for this kind of thing. I had a look at your website. It is obvious you know what you are doing. This kind of work is not what I want to do.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> I can't remember any complexity of composition, any discord or juxtaposition or even inherent

comment or irony in the frame.

 

Curious, I took a look at your flickr stream you referenced above of random people, and that was the exact

feeling I came away with - and that was before coming across your comment I just quoted.

 

>>> Landscapes are, for me, inherently boring. They need to be pretty special to grab my attention.

 

I think that can be true for all genres of photography...

[shutterbud]

<p>"Your camera, your pixels/emulsion, you shoot what excites and drives you. In the end it’s all good"</p>

[tholte]

<p>"I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you suggesting that I should just give up?" I would give up worrying about ratings you get here or anywhere else. Have fun taking photos and do it because you love it. Go back in the archives here and view some of the posts about ratings and you will get a sense of how silly they are in the big scheme of things.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>I agree with Simon that you made a bad error in getting rid of Photoshop .... was it full PS or just PSE there is a consioderable difference. Camera and editor are companion tools towards the final result in the digital age. In the film age it was camera and darkroom until Kodak led everybody astray with their color film processed at Kodak's Lab. Digital has returned the darkroom to the serious worker in the form of the computer and editing programme making it so much easier and quicker, I used to have a darkroom.<br>

I prefer my results to look like photographs too and I use my editing skills to make a photographic representation of what it wasn't in real life Becuase life cannot be controlled a lot of the time but the results look as if I had had control.<br>

I use Paint Shop Pro which is comparable to Photoshop and though both are complex programmes I think PSP is more intuitive and I no longer have PS in my computer </p>

[Nick D.]

<p>Christal, I would recommend you "The Art of Photography" by Bruce Barnbaum, it is not entertaining reading, but it give me better understanding of what is photography about as personal expression.<br>

Steve, since you brought it up yourself, I did look at your photo stream and with Photoshop or without, some of them just correctly exposed snapshots, without connection with subject, taken from safe distance, make viewer wonder, what photographer trying to express?</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Christal's background as a professional musician and teacher brings to mind a question I've pondered for awhile...</p>

<p>How can we translate our personal creative experience into a constructive critique experience, both giving and receiving criticism constructively?</p>

<p>For example, Christal: Can you conceive of any constructive purpose for a numerical or comparable ratings system for a professional musician? Or for a particular performance, or performance of a particular piece?</p>

<p>If audience members were given an American Idol style option to dole out numbers after a concert in which you had performed, would you change anything in response to seeing that a few audience members had anonymously rated the performance 3 out of 7? If so, and if not, then why or why not?</p>

<p>And if audience members had rated the performance 7 when you knew the performance was somehow flawed, would you happily accept that rating as valid and dismiss your concerns about a less than perfect performance? Or would you doubt the critical ears of some audience members and determine to do better next time despite the accolades?</p>

<p>And if the ratings for the concert were anonymous from 1-5, but visible for ratings of 6 and 7, and you knew the performance wasn't perfect - perhaps wasn't even particularly good by your own high standards - would you suspect that perhaps some of those audience members were relying on social networking and a bit of ego massaging to lubricate the next social gathering, fundraiser, etc.? Perhaps they were hoping you might reciprocate with some sort of favor - anything from donating a solo recital for a children's hospital fundraiser, to friending them on Facebook or Google+ and helping to promote their own favorite causes.</p>

<p>I mention this, in part, because of the behind the scenes drama that occasionally accompanies the Cliburn piano competition in my hometown of Fort Worth, including this year. Even when judges are considered competent because they've been selected from a pool of folks with solid professional credentials, there is still an inevitable bit of drama over their "ratings system" and decisions.</p>

<p>The vast majority of photo.netters really are photographers and folks who are passionate about photography. So is there any particular reason why we shouldn't consider their ratings just as valid and well qualified as anyone's, even when their ratings are 5 and lower, without any explanation?</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p><em>I wholeheartedly agree with your statement:</em><br /> But anyone who doles out ratings of 5 or lower had better be prepared to show his credentials.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sigh. You're in denial Christal.<em><br /></em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Denial about being specially sensitive the low ratings despite repeated references to only those ratings (The title of the thread, itself, arises solely out of low ratings only). After all that was pointed out, it was then claimed to be concern for comments for on all ratings instead of low ones. But the fixation is still there even though you refuse or are unable to see it.</p>

<p>Now its qualifications of others to make low ratings. No recognition that, if qualifications are needed to justify those ratings, they are just as needed for higher ones. There are many threads discussing whether special qualifications are needed for ratings. Whether it be the credentials or viewing the images of the raters. In all those threads, just like this one, receipt of low ratings were cited as the need qualification. Never higher ones. The posting of this thread follows that same motivation 100%. Thread after thread started from complaints that low rates needed comments leaving out the others. Low raters need qualifications the other lime of complaint always was and always is. <br /><br /><br />You will never get the most out of feedback, of whatever nature, until you recognize the bias and filtering your have in your mind that dismisses the less than flattering review. Putting the reviewer on trial rather than checking one's own sensitivity at the door.</p>

<p> </p>

[mike dixon]

One of the ironies that always pops up in these discussions is the belief that low ratings must come from photographers who are unqualified/inexperienced/incompetent whereas higher ratings come from professional/experienced/talented photographers. I'd argue that the opposite is much more likely. An experienced photographer who has already seen many thousands of lovely cliches (and probably taken a lot of them himself/herself) will be much harder to impress than a newbie who hasn't overdosed on pretty sunsets.

[mike dixon]

Another irony is the insistence that people should demonstrate that they are skilled photographers before they can offer a valid opinion about a photo but no such demonstration is required for them to give advice about how to take photos. Seems backwards to me. You don't have to be an expert chef to tell whether or not a meal is good; you don't have to be an acclaimed filmmaker to tell whether or not you enjoyed a movie. On the other hand, if someone is giving me advice about how to cook, I'd want to know that person is actually a competent cook. However, on photo.net, you see people offering advice on how to take photos all the time with no demand that they demonstrate their competence in the field, but you better be an outstanding photographer if you dare to not like a photo or give a low rating.

[dan_south]

I argee with both of Mike D's points above with some caveats.

 

Can a person who knows nothing about photography judge a photograph as being good or bad? Certainly! As long as

they actually took the time to look at it seriously. I trust the perception of the interested lay person, because they're not

thinking about technical matters. They are only concerned with whether the image appeals to them.

 

On the other hand, we can't assume that the lay person is genuinely interested in an art form? What does the average

pop music listener think about Mozart? Or Stravinsky? If you took a sports fan to the opera, would they genuinely try to

determine whether it's appealing? Or would they get bored and look for excuses to get up and leave?

 

Regarding the creation of something, whether it's a photo or something else, I think it helps to know the advisor's level of

ability and factor that in. Someone who barely knows how to grill a hamburger might not be able to give an aspiring cook

useful advice on preparing creme brûlée. Let the advisee beware.

[MichaelChang]

<p>Mike, you've touched on a few problems on the operation of photo.net of which there are few clear answers, nevertheless I believe it can work if placed within context. </p>

<p>Some of the best cooks are domestic in their making of daily family meals. For the most part they neither know or understand the sciences involved in cooking nor the history and evolution of food, nonetheless their opinion can be entirely valid even if it's supported by nothing more than intuition and limited personal experience. </p>

<p>The problem with only valuing expert advice becomes apparent if only competent professional politicians can offer legitimate points of view about politics, social issues, or governance, which we know not to be the case. </p>

<p>Of course not every offered advice or opinion has value to its recipient or general population even at a technical level in which there is a clear right or wrong. Departing from technical issues, IMO, is where it will remain vague with no absolutes, given that we're in a forum where content is user-generated and active participation is highly encouraged. </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"Can a person who knows nothing about photography judge a photograph as being good or bad? Certainly! As long as they actually took the time to look at it seriously."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Aye, there's the rub.</p>

<p>What do we mean by "took the time to look at it seriously"? What if time and experience are inextricably, if mysteriously, interconnected <em>(see the theory that it takes something like 5,000 or 10,000 hours to become an "expert")</em>? By that reasoning, the longer a beginner or novice considers something, the farther he or she gets away from being a beginner or novice. Therefore, by the time she decides to render a judgement or offer a numerical rating, the less a novice she is.</p>

<p>And if that's true, then it doesn't take an experienced photographer as long to "seriously" consider a photograph. In which case, I am vindicated for taking less than 30 seconds per photo when I use the dreaded "anonymous" rate photos queue. In reality, sometimes I take only 5 seconds. For some photos I may take several minutes, including navigating to the page where the photo is hosted and considering the larger view, as well as the context of the folder or entire portfolio. And the time I take may have little influence on my actual rating. Some photos are so obviously good I don't need more than a few seconds to rate them 5 or higher. Others are so lacking in intent, execution or subjective aesthetic merit that even after having spent five minutes studying the photo and portfolio I'm still not persuaded to rate it higher than 3.</p>

<p>How often are any of us persuaded away from our initial snap judgements? Statistically, studies indicate not often. But we can all probably recall certain specific instances when the "acquired taste" phenomenon changed our opinions about a certain food, music, movie or art.</p>

<p>But did that make us "experts" in asparagus, noise rock, Bergman films or abstract art? Or did we simply acquire a taste and preference without being able to elucidate why?</p>

[shutterbud]

<p>I like how this conversation is going. And it is true, for me at least, that the opinions of strangers on the internet matter a little provided I can understand why they say what they do. But, if someone doesn't like what you're producing and their criticism doesn't help you understand how to become a better photographer, there's not much you can do about it. You have to shrug and move on.<br>

For example Nick doesn't think much of my work. That is 100% fair enough. I have no axe to grind with him. He aks what I am trying to express. I'm trying to capture everyday life in China in the 21st Century in an interesting, honest way. I am not trying to superimpose my own ego on these people. Maybe the lack of manipulation stops me from being an "artist". Maybe I should have shoved my camera in their faces. Maybe I'm too polite or even well-balanced to have "vision". I just take what I see, with no agenda. Obviously I also looked at his gallery on this site, where I learned that photographing people from a 'safe' distance expresses nothing, but photographing swans from a safe distance does.<br>

I am not interested in an argument- Nick likes what he does and doesn't like what I do and vice versa- there is nothing wrong with that at all. But I do find it strange to hear people, who are often taking pretty mundane photographs, talking about "their vision". When it come down to it, we all do our best and hope that others like it. And I think it is very rare for someone to have a portfolio of 'vision'. I have clicked on links to many world-renowned photographers and only very rarely been super-impressed. Most of the time it's just another photograph. </p>

 

[Christal1664882414]

<p>Dan.... I think 'develop' is an excellent choice of wording. (And an appropriate word for the subject of photography, don't you think?) ;-) Seriously, I'll remember the Dan South 'Bible'. Wise advice, and I appreciate the advice.<br>

<br />It's the same with the music professional. It's a life-long journey of growing and developing. For some, that is..... for those who keep an open mind, are willing to be be challenged and work very, very hard, growth occurs. For others, they stagnate and become cynical and lose their 'chops'. I prefer being in the 1st group. But no matter how hard we work, we can never be as good as we want to be. There is no such thing as absolute perfection. Someone will always come along who can surpass anything I've done. But that doesn't keep me from striving to improve at least. </p>