nicolerenee

Vince, I did enjoy the quote very much, thanks! It's almost exactly what I was looking for.

 

Arthur, what I meant about hindsight was that there have been instances when the quality of someones work was never appreciated in their lifetimes and only in a later generation was their work valued (thinking more of painters here)

And I know there are some "works of art" I dont personally find asthetically pleasing at all (particularly cubists and the scream)that are still considered "great."

Is there any standard by which you can measure a photo to determine

it's "greatness"? Is it something that can only be seen in hindsight? Is it

determined by technical perfection, or aesthetic appeal? Or is it, ultimately,

that it has a broad enough generality to allow the viewer to attatch his own

emotions/thoughts/ideas to it and make it his own?

(i.e. the Flag raising in WWII, hijacked because of it's emotional value and

exploited {Im not devaluing it's cultural significance here, just for an

example})

Ummm...it IS all about me. I thought everybody knew that.

 

Sheesh.

Question...what constitites nudes vs boudoir?

lol...thats funny. You people crack me up. I love pn.

What is medium format gear?

Wow, thanks for all that input :)

Im really one for "culling the herd" so it's fine for me to work with just the basics for a while as long as the basics are decent (my little camera just aint cutting it) and I trash more than 3/4 of what I shoot almost immediately and then evaluate what I have on a regular basis and get rid of anything that doesnt have staying power.

 

As far as which step to move on TO, I'm feeling like digital might be less of a hassel between my house and the developers, plus my scanner is pretty small (one of those printer/scanner/copier things...and HP photosmart my granny got me for my birthday) and that might cause quite a problem with film...ah...what a hassel.

Thanks for the suggestion, but I think it will be a little while before I can take any classes as I've got a fiesty 3 year old boy running around. I'm sure I'll be able to work a schedual around it eventually with my MGIB but unfortunately it will have to wait. But I figure I might as well learn as much as possible while I can. Books are my friend. Any recomendations?

All old threads not withstanding, I have a problem...

I asked a question not long ago about how I could get better pictures with the

ps digital camera I've got and recieved some really helpfull answers so I'm

hoping you all will help me with the next step.

 

I cant wait to move on from my little Sony with a 12mm (frusterating!) lens to

something BIGGER and BETTER that wont frusterate me so bad but Im not sure

where to move on TO. I've heard lots of good things about the Cannon Rebal but

I cant decided whether to go for a digital or a film (no experience with film

at ALL) and if I should even change it up yet.

 

I dont want to open up that pandora's box of which is BETTER, strictly

speaking, but which will be more a more affordable purchase in the long run

i.e. the ability to edit a digital photo on my laptop but the COST of the

camera itself vs. a cheaper film camera but the cost of film and processing

over the long run. And am I loosing any control over my photo's by entrusting

them to someone else....

 

Should I just shut up and keep shooting and reading and hoping an answer will

work itself out? Geeze, I feel lost.

Vince, dont be bummed out on candids! Here is one of the photographers I personally think has a great talent for capturing "essence" (if you want to call it that) in candid photo's

 

www.photo.net/photos/Emmanuel Enyinwa

To me, essence means something fundamental and intrinsic that takes part in defining a person/place/thing. If you are lucky enough to capture something defining about a persons character (Churchill's portrait revealed something of his character whether we knew of him or not...I am one of those wierdo's that DOES believe in ultimate truth...)you have captured about as much of their essence as the medium allows.

Ahhh, love Vermeer... not so much rembrandt, though.

I'm sorry that my question left so much room for interpretation! ;)

All I meant was that you asked the question "is there any photography which is not art?" and I was just wondering if you have conluded whether there is or is not based on the opinions/information/whatever above.

So, Chip, since you started this thread, have you come to any conclusions or are you still in the dark?

You have a very valid point. I was thinkng more along the lines of the fact that a photograph of mine (a beginner with mostly mediocre work) has ratings from a 3/4 to a 6/6 and those on broad terms. I guess in my mind, a good shot is a good shot whether it appeals to my personal preferances or not. I can appreciate the skill and compostion, lighting and so forth of a photograph without enjoying it the same way I can appreciate the talent of a musician without enjoying his style of music. But I should know better than to think everyone would think the same way :)

Would it be a good idea to give a stricter defenition ( I cant spell :) ) to what constitutes a good/better/best photo or bad and worst photo?

 

Maybe instead of just giving a broad rating in 2 catagories give an individual rating for the specific things that make a photo generally bad or good?

 

Composition 1-7

 

Light 1-7

 

DOF 1-7

 

Origionality 1-7

 

Aesthectics 1-7

 

etc... or something along those lines? At least that way you'd have a more complete understanding of what you were lacking in a photo when you got a rating.

 

As far as my portfolio is concerned, I average a 4, which I know is generally deserved but is an odd ammalgamation of everything between 3 and 7. Strange how so many people can look at a thing and come away with a different view of it.

It stinks that no system will ever be perfect but I think you've got a good idea Bruce. Even if they moved up to 4/4, at least we would know who they were are be able to inquire of them.

You know Marc, in a lot of ways you are right and unltimately it is US who has to be happy with our work, but at the same time it's important for some of us beginners to have an outside opinion for a few different reasons.

 

1) We havent got enough experience to know all the tricks of the trade and can benefit from others when they make helpful comments that throw light on something we hadnt seen before, ie. I had posted a photo of my brother playing the guitar taken at an angle from the head of the guitar. Some thoughtful PN'er suggested that I might want to flip it because the western eye tends to travel from left to right and that would draw the eye more into the photo. I followed his suggestion and reposted the photo and I much prefer the second version. I would not have even thought to do that myself.

 

2)Both praise and critique help to push us to do better work. When someone praises my photo, it gives me extra confidence and helps motivate me to take more photo's and try to develop my style, and when someone gives me a critique it forces me to look at my photo in a different way and take those factors into consideration when shooting/composing/editing another work.

 

I think others opinions are invaluable as well as getting to see their bodies of work and be inspired by those.

Also, I have decided not to rate a photo unless I intend to provide a comment as well and that way the reciever wont be left with any of the questions we've all had since starting here...at least not from me :)

So, has anyone come to any conclusions here, or will we just keep arguing ourselves around in circles? At some point (when the point has been lost :) )we must just agree to disagree. Are we at an impasse?

You know what, I wish I could take credit for that poem but what can you say, I'll probably never come close to creating anything that compares with an Emerson poem.

 

It may sound funny, but this is a question that can move beyond just idea's of perception and even quantum thoery or physics but right on into the spiritual. Science can only deal with things quantifiable (honestly, everything else is just theory) but can't explain (and isnt meant to) the PURPOSE behind any of what we experience as "this world." Science can only tell us what nature DOES, it cannot tell us WHY. (i.e. where concience comes from, or faith or any other intangible emotion that cannot be measured. Why do elephants mourn? It doesnt improve their survival.)

So if you believe in God, it may be sensible to say "what is beautiful IS beautiful whether you were there to see/hear/touch or otherwise experience it or not."

I've been surprised, myself, at the eloquence of some of these PN'ers!

Julie, I do agree. While I've made some mistakes rating myself and now am trying only to do so when I've got something constructive to offer, I've heard from a few different PN'ers that ultimately you should discount the ratings and pay more attention to the critiques and comments themselves.

I've found most to be polite, helpfull and encouraging. I dont know if anything can be done about the 'system' but I personally feel much better to have someone comment than rate because at least then you know they took the time to look at your work and arent just flashing through the rating section like I made the mistake of doing before I understood a little better what was going on.

 

To all those people I misrated, my appologies. I dont feel that I am far enough along in the field to give sound critiques with the weight of experience behind them but hope that any observations I've given helpful.

Thanks to everyone for your help! I wont be able to switch cameras any time soon but even just seeing YOUR work has helped me lay out shots and other things that I hope has improved my skills. Again, thank you SO much!

When I read this, I instantly thought of this...hope it helps

 

The Rhodora

 

In May, when sea-winds pierced our solitudes

 

I found the fresh Rhodora in the woods,

 

Spreading it's leafless blooms in a damp nook,

 

To please the desert and the sluggish brook.

 

The purple petals, fallen in the pool,

 

Made the black water with their beauty gay;

 

Here might the red bird come his plumes to cool

 

and court the flower that cheapens his array.

 

Rhodora! If the sages ask thee why

 

this charm is wasted on earth and sky

 

Tell them dear, that if eyes were made for seeing,

 

beauty is it's own excuse for being;

 

Why you were there, O rival of the rose

 

I never knew:

 

But in my simple ignorance I suppose

 

the self-same power that brought me there, brought you.

 

Ralph Waldo Emerson

LOL!

 

Okay, this is great! I've just read through all these posts from highly intelligent people and if you notice, the words get longer and the sentences more complicated as the posts go on. You guys are great. I've certainly been entertained and educated at the same time.

 

Personally, I believe "art" as we've come to use the word, means something created for the purpose of stirring the emotions and intellect of the the viewer/user to look beyond the mere appearance of the thing and into what MAKES it. If a photograph was taken purely for the purpose of teaching someone how to use a screwdriver (for example), the photo is a tool, not art. Art is meant to seek the quintesence behind the mundane, the substance that is unattainable otherwise. Art isnt supposed to have a practicle purpose. Photo's of celebrity's in pretty dresses is just meant to show me what they wore that day. I dont consider that art. If I create a pitcher so I can pour water into a cup, the pitcher is not art. If I create a pitcher in order that it's lines, color, texture ect... appeal to the asthetic eye, it is art.

So personally yes, I believe a photograph can be both art and just a plain old picture.

 

 

As far as the diagrams are concerned, some people can create a visual picture of a thought process just by reading the words, and some people need some visual assistance to grasp the intended concept. Its not a bad or good thing either way.

 

(please excuse my spelling, it's been bad since highschool :) )