crappy pictures

[james_kennedy2]

Over the lasr few days, this forum has seemed to be inundated with a

lot of photos that were taken with poor exposure settings, lousy

focus, and/or with low shutter speeds that produced fuzzy pictures.

The prevailing mantra is that "hey, I'm a street photographer

capturing cinema verite". The series of pics of Paris prostitutes is

a case in point. Hello, they were lousy photographs that I would be

embarrassed to promote. Come on, people, we can do better than that.

[._._z]

<i> Over the lasr few days, this forum has seemed to be inundated with a lot of photos

that were taken with poor exposure settings, lousy focus, and/or with low shutter speeds

that produced fuzzy pictures </i><p>

 

Only over the last few days? <p>

 

<i> The prevailing mantra is that "hey, I'm a street photographer capturing cinema

verite". </i><p>

 

Really? They were capturing movies being filmed? <p>

 

<i> The series of pics of Paris prostitutes is a case in point. Hello, they were lousy

photographs that I would be embarrassed to promote. </i><p>

 

And you're doing a bad job of it once you've begun, too.

[octavio bustard]

Everybody back to puppys and sunsets; James Kennedy needs pictures to promote!

[EricM]

Huh? What are you on about James? In my opinion, they�re great. They�re moody and dynamic. In your opinion, they are not. That�s the significant element to this medium. But to start a thread and hack these shots in particuliar, there must be something else going on; something personal perhaps, and hence making you very small?

[art waldschmidt]

The decline of formal considerations (in all mediums) has become almost the hallmark of a certain approach to art. The sophomoric, popular, image of the *artist-as-rebel* (doomed to perennially chafe at the constraints of technique, craft-knowledge, grammer, or tripod!) seems often to usurp any other moderating influences. Since the advent of *Modernism* (not without some utility as far as the banishment of stultifying academicism goes), the flaunting of technical indifference has become equated with innovation and genius.

 

Addressing the Paris pics you referenced: they hold the promise of a fascinating series with the application of some judicious editing. I re-read the poster's comments, reviewed the images quite a few times, and re-considered my own response. Showing work in progress is a brave and dangerous undertaking - one often either falls prey to flattery or is side-tracked by criticism (no mattter how constructive or well-intentioned).

[travis1]

My advice: let others say what they want and let others shoot what they want. YOUR life goes on and so will everyone's.

[m_.]

James: Not sure if you are looking for a solution here or simply just expressing your frustration for not liking the stuff you saw. I would just walk away from my screen and forget about it if I see something that I don't care. I am not a god of the unverse to judge why people like the things they like. The thought of controling other's liking is the seed of diatatorship and censorship. Get on with it the other way.

 

I hope I do not sound offensive but only try to provide a different perspective. I'd rather see more pictures than someone whining all the time.

[h._p.]

Wentong, I don't think it's fair to characterise James's post as an attempt to control other people's views. I think he's just putting his view.

 

There are some people around here who have a tendency to say how much they like something and to rubbish any contrary opinion, often telling the contrarian that he doesn't understand what he's seeing. I had a run in with a couple of such people last year and yes, they know who they are. I say 'good for James' for putting his opinion forward.

[bill_bowden]

There are crappy pictures on this forum, but there are also very

good pictures here. That's what I like about this forum. It's a

democracy. With the click of a mouse, I can get away from the

images I don't like. But looking at them might be good for me.

Sometimes, I'll see something I didn't see at first glance. I think

some of William Eggleston's pictures are crap, but they helped

win him a Guggenheim, got him an exhibit at MOMA and are in

several books. So what do I know? But, to tell you the truth, his

pictures have opened my mind just a little bit.

[kevin m.]

Back to business as usual, eh Bailey?

[EricM]

Harvey,

 

�I say 'good for James' for putting his opinion forward.�

 

I agree with your sentiment, but disagree with James�s choice of words and tone. Maybe a good slagging is regarded as an opinion now? If you go back to the thread in question, James has posted one sentence in regards to Tim�s photos. Anything further coming from James mouth is �worthless shit� in my opinion.

 

Good on Tim. He�s stepped into an environment that perhaps is uncomfortable for him to be in, has documented a necessary lifestyle choice for many, and provoked thought and debate amongst us. That�s more than anything I have done recently. Kudos.

[travis1]

The way I see it. Everyone has the right to an opinion to anyone's work. And everyone has the right to an opinion to anyone's opinion about anyone's work. It never ends.

 

SO you see, it's a cycle. people come and go, portfolio changes. One day we don't like this, another day we don't like that. One day we don't like this person, another day we don't like that person.

 

Be cool about everything and everyone around you. If someone don't like your work, fine. If someone don't like your opinion, fine. Log off and watch Survivor.;)

 

Look forward, never backwards. Have an opinion, and respect that others can have one too.

[henricus]

I must say that the fact that these pictures have provoked a response that requires a thread on how much you dislike them, fascinates me. Does this mean that whether you like them or not, you are forced to address them and therefore find them fascinating?

[davidv1]

James,

 

You're entitled to your opinion, of course. How about a little respect for the photographer? He's he one who thought up the project, made the images and took the risk of posting them for critique.

 

You can't just say "these are worthless..." without supporting evidence.

[sprouty]

James, please describe how they could be improved in you mind. I'd actually like to hear. Once that discussion begins you'll be right back to the best reason to spend time at this site.

<P>

So step up and offer some real criticism or otherwise it just sounds like catty bitching.

[mark_rutledge]

Maybe James is right...let's get back to "properly" exposed, in focus, static

shots that bore the viewer to tears. I for one can't get enough of his "Snow

Dogs" images!

[sprouty]

By the way this <I>�These pictures are worthless shit!�</I> doesn�t qualify. (From the <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007JDh">previous</a> thread.)

[markci]

<i>Come on, people, we can do better than that.</i><p>Well "we" would necessarily include "you." So we're waiting for you to show us how it's done. I don't think the sheep dog snapshots exactly qualify.

[jean_.]

Tim,

 

I don't remember of any pictures posted here that started such a controversal debate, that actually a second thread is opened to keep on the fight.

 

Most photos here a nice, cute, well-done, and forgotten the very moment you scroll down the page. The hooker series seems to have touched many forum members in a way that they feel the urge to discuss about it. This does not happen many times.

 

In the days of literally drowning in images, this is quite an achievment. Keep it up!

[hughes]

Stephen

In my opinion there is a way this presentation could be improved , they really need to be edited down. Tim shows us 14 images when they really should have been only six or seven, this would make a much more powerful statement. Now if the pictures were posted for critique I might have missed the point, but as a presentation there are just too many images, and I have noticed that is a common problem on this site a sort of photographic diarrhea. What it does is make a potentially great presentation mediocre. There is a truism that the photographer is his own worst editor, I beleive this . This of course is just my humble opinion and I would welcome some discussion on the subject.

[________1]

OK, just for the record. I know my comments yesterday about �Tim� in the context of �Tim�s work� were actually not called for. It�s about the photographs, not the photographer. I know Tim is a good photographer, as would anyone by taking a peek at his portfolio. And I�m sure he�s a good guy or he wouldn�t be creeping about in the middle of the night with a Leica, would he? So Tim, please accept my apologies.

[jack_lo_..._t_o]

When you buy your first fine camera, you get very involved in the way it can make tack-sharp photos of weathered wood, people's faces, etc. Some people never get past this.

 

But good photography is about images, not (necessarily) perfect reproduction. There's an emotional content to some pictures that not only transcends EV values and resolution charts. In fact the blurred face or street sign, the underexposure and dark corners CREATE meaning through what is left out. What is NOT shown becomes as important as what is shown.

 

I would have expected any contributor to a >Leica< forum to realise that.

 

Tim's pix were a perfect demonstration of these principles. I agree that a few of them were less interesting than others, but it had nothing to do with being "fuzzy".

[dominic_.]

As for the Paris photographs, a) They were not lousy, b) They were his original idea, c) He went out at night on the streets to photograph them and d0 They're really good. Or maybe is it that you haven't seen any good photographs recently, what's your idea of good? Pretty flower shots, a sunset? That's not art (well some are), try getting a few books out of the library on photography (Ernst Haas, Irving Penn, HCB, et al.) and then come back here and make comments about other peoples' hard work.

[octavio bustard]

Wow! Just checked back in and found the debate continuing.

 

Jamie J: No apology needed. I didnt take your comments about me personally; in fact I thought that the fact you could surmise about me from my pics was a good thing - it means they are expressing a point of view.

 

As for the comment about the pics needing better editing - I agree wholeheartedly. Not all posted are going to make a final cut; maybe half at most. I was hoping folks could give me insight into the specific images that work and those that don't.

 

I've got alot more. I'll continue to shoot and whittle them down to about 25.

 

The idea is to exhibit them in conjunction with photos from Semana Santa in Sevilla Spain. For the uninitiated, its a weeklong religious 'celebration' the week before Easter where very bizarre people flagilate them selves in the streets, carry around Medieval relics, dress in bizarre garb and generally act extremely weird. It'll have the same "poor exposure settings,lousy focus and/or low shutter speeds that produce fuzzy pictures" aesthetic. I'd post some here when I get them together but I'm afraid they might give Mr. Kennedy an aneurism...

[__jon__]

>james kennedy Photo.net Patron, feb 08, 2004; 06:47 a.m.

>The series of pics of Paris prostitutes is a case in point. Hello, they were lousy photographs that I would be embarrassed to promote.

 

A fine example of tactlessness... Which seems to be one of your character traits.

 

>Come on, people, we can do better than that.

 

Who is 'we'? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? You want us all to post tecnically correct but (IMO) boring dog photographs? What are you, some sort of photographic communist?