Tim_Lookingbill

Great! Good call! You should be a judge at these contests. I'll expect the same keen eye and articulation on all the posted winners. Good luck seeing the light of day.

Alan, you crack me up. Yes, invite the losing team. LOVE IT!

You don't define what a community is, Sandy. It's a simple exchange of opinions whether you or anyone else agrees or disagrees. I've been here longer than you have. I've also frequent quite a few other forums where my input is welcome whether it's taken negatively or positively. I see something, I say something. If someone doesn't like what I say, that's their problem.

The dude that's going to make this thread toxic, Sandy is Moving On. And I have him permanently on ignore for good reason.

And you think that your opinion is new information and is helpful how? You offer nothing except arguments because every one of your sentences is coined to address every point I made on what is factual information vs stuff read in a history of photography book. You've established you have no new and useful information for making better photographs.

Well then you must not get much out of this place, Sandy. Why are you here? Or maybe you just don't want to be taught. Lot a dudes yours and my age just don't want that any longer. I have life experience and education as well so where did I come up with my premise that seems to rub folks into responding to the contrary?

Back to addressing the topic... I wouldn't be interested in hearing about photo contest successes because I don't want to be reminded of the tons of polished mediocre photos that will most likely win these contests seeing the over abundance of content online make it impossible to find the really good stuff. The judges just don't have the time to do the work necessary to find really meaningful photos culling through a trillion images. No matter who wins a photo contest it's always going to be a display of disappointing polished mediocrity. And I really don't give a crap if that's taken as an antisocial comment.

Clearly we've both established in this exchange that you're not an authority on how to socialize. And I'll leave it at that.

Nothing that you said, Sandy, is a fact. You're repeating what you've read in the past. It doesn't make it a fact. And you may appreciate my wish to do the opposite of what you espouse to be as fact. You don't understand why I choose to do the opposite. And that is made fact by you not wanting to know why by asking further questions. You are dug in thinking your response is new information to me and that I need to be told that. Did you feel like you taught me something new? If not, why did you tell me something you know I already know? It's good to feel like you're an authority on a subject whether it's necessary or not. I gave new information that wasn't taken as valuable or useful because it goes against established authority of what most think is factual information when it is just what someone writes in a book. Because that author is automatically taken as an authority, no one questions the validity of their information. Lot's of folks who don't question authority soon pay dearly for it into the future. That has been proven as FACT!

This in bold... Conflicts with the lines in bold below when it comes to your definition of socializing... So you socialize in order to use people as subjects in your photography. In my book that's a bit of a dishonest, shallow and disingenuous way to socialize (and not very deep so you're correct in that claim). So which is it? Photography as a way to socialize? Or socializing as its own reward? You socialize in public much like you do online. Keep it light with no commitment and always be distracted by waiting for that defining moment. That's not what I call developing lasting friendships where I come from. And what's the definition of a serious photographer? Who gets to define that term? From the way you've defined socializing I can't take you seriously.

Good! I left you speechless. My work is done.

So you interpreted my very descriptive account of what I see in people in the flesh as overly analytical instead of an appreciation of the nuances of a personality. Maybe you don't look very closely at the world as I do. I can't imagine your take on the Mona Lisa. Comradery is about the most anyone can expect in the form of an emotional human connection whether in exchanges online or in person. It feels good to be connected this way but it is short and sweet unless there is a clear demonstration of a true commitment and that isn't happening online or in chance meet ups in person.

So you are annoyed about strangers you meet online that don't share their success at getting a prestigious photography award. Looks like more socializing is required. How does one get into this sharing group of serious photographers? Seeing that the creative process is a very self centered endeavor I wouldn't know how to find the time to cultivate a group of individuals who see them self as serious photographers but then I guess that makes me a serious photographer. I'm too busy photographing to enter photo contests. I also don't have the funds to pay the fees to enter. I wonder if more socializing would fix that.

What do you all learn from looking at other people's photographs posted online, in museums and in books on the history of photography? Or maybe you all just like looking at pictures made by other people? Nothing more.

The Cassini photo has nothing to do with my not wanting to have other folk's preconceived ideas and pictures in my mind when I seek scenes I want to shoot. The Cassini photo is a symbol of my perspective and philosophy on life and how I make my decisions on what I want to shoot. The Cassini photo is never in my head as a preconceived image to aspire to make. I don't think your reply to me was thought through very carefully. You also based your reply from the first lines of my comment out of context of my entire response.

I didn't know online chatting was socializing or sufficed as human contact. I've always associated socializing with others as being able to tell what cologne they like to wear, which way they lean when they walk, how they pronounce their 'S'es, check if their eyes are too far apart, how much ear hair, or whether they shake hands with a soft grip and then go on to tell me about their boat they just bought.

What can be learned from someone posting an announcement that they won a photo contest or generally speaking was a success at something?

I don't rely on any history at all. I photograph while I'm in the moment. I don't want another person's preconceived ideas and pictures in my head when I seek scenes to photograph. I want me and only me interpreting and being inspired by the scene. I don't read books anymore because books tell me that another person's life and creative approach has convinced a cadre of like minded publishers I don't know a thing about that they are more interesting than myself. I am more interesting than what I see published in a book or any one else in history and that's because I have all the facts about me and nothing about the person being written about and/or featured in a showing of their work that went through careful selective editing process. It's my life and I get only one chance, so I don't want to waste it living and admiring someone else's life. History books are made by folks for other folks who live their life as spectators blindly sizing each other up without really having all the facts about the other person being written about and comparing them self to. Life is short so I really have no desire to read about or look at another person's creative life. I'm never sure I know all the facts about them and their creative process that created works that were culled and curated so the public sees what they want them to see. It's not a true history about the creative person even when one looks at a finished work they admire and think they can learn from it. One would have to know everything on how their work was created and that's impossible to know. History is for those that want something to read about and contemplate over. It's not going to make them creative and they're never going to see the way the artists sees because they will never know all the facts on how it was done. Even the artist doesn't know all the facts on how it was done.