Good Photographer/Bad Photographer

Covey

smelltheglove wrote: »

And a few do, but I do not see the need to pick at every post because you do not agree with something that was initaially misinterpreted or as Calina likes to point out not explained in an appropriate manner. I mean for f sake its all about a bloody mix up, I mean lay the thing to rest guys this is getting ridiculous. I mean fight with me because I will not name a photographer whose work I didnt want to pay for, fight with me because I say I can take great pics of my kids, (of course I can, I know how they work), fight with me because I ask a question in context of the discussion, fight with me for not explaining my statements in clear enough detail for you guys not to think I am arrogant or cocky or whatever (for which I apologised) can you see a trend, I mean its kinda pathetic really, and yes that is my opinion, although I am sure you can argue every reason for each disection of each post made.

*by fight I mean argue or whatever it is you guys are doing, no need to jump down my throat and say you are not fighting or arguing or whatever you are not doing.

I'm not fighting or arguing with you , but expressing a polar opposite opinion to yours. Thats not pathetic, but normal. Feel free to express your opinion, as I certainly will. The world is a much better place for diverse opinions and the expressing of same.

potlatch

Valentia wrote: »

Well, no. Not to me anyway. What rules are you talking about? I don't look up any rules and then make a judgement. Even a cursery glance of the photos on this forum will tell you that there is a massive diversity of styles. Many not going by any "rule book".

"Good photos ignored because they do not comply with some rules or something". What are you talking about (examples)? It's certainly not true here. In fact miles off the mark.

Well, then, you're not understanding what I'm saying. My very point *is* diversity of rules, but rules nonetheless. It's a visual grammar.

I admire certain kinds of photpraphers. Their visual style provides a kind of implicit rule-book for me. I don't mean like 'rule of thirds' or whatever, there are implicit rules about what, in a certain context, a certain photographic community considers a photo to be acceptable.

These vary considerably, but they're implicit rules all the same.

I see it in this forum all the time. It's not a bad thing, by the way. Again, my point is without acknowledging this diversity, without acknowledging where people offering criticism are coming from, it leads to unnecessary conflict on this forum. And it's one of the more fascinating aspects of photography, to me anyway.

sineadw

God, this thing has legs, huh? I'm still utterly failing to see why Andy got dragged into this too

STG - I think the original intention of people asking you to name the photographer is because you believed yourself so superior to him. They wanted to compare, not badmouth the guy/girl. There was an arrogance in the statement that got people's backs up. Gone way off topic from there, but I honestly think you brought all this on yourself.

And if I can point something out - its not just what you say about other photographers that affects online reputation, but what you say about yourself. Your name and link is in every single one of your posts here, which will show on google. And boards ranks very highly on searches in Ireland. I'm not saying don't defend yourself, but if you don't want every potential client reading this and other discussions about over-inflated egos (whether you take the point or not!) then I suggest you either take the links out of your sig so you can speak more freely, or perhaps choose your words/topics/online persona more carefully. And I don't mean that as a personal attack (no matter how I might feel on the subject) but as a bit of professional advice. As a wedding photographer you should be infinitely more worried about your own name popping up on google in an unflattering context than you are about others'.

smelltheglove

smelltheglove wrote: »

I mean fight with me because I will not name a photographer whose work I didnt want to pay for, fight with me because I say I can take great pics of my kids, (of course I can, I know how they work), fight with me because I ask a question in context of the discussion, fight with me for not explaining my statements in clear enough detail for you guys not to think I am arrogant or cocky or whatever (for which I apologised) can you see a trend, I mean its kinda pathetic really, and yes that is my opinion, although I am sure you can argue every reason for each disection of each post made.

*by fight I mean argue or whatever it is you guys are doing, no need to jump down my throat and say you are not fighting or arguing or whatever you are not doing.

Covey wrote: »

I'm not fighting or arguing with you , but expressing a polar opposite opinion to yours. Thats not pathetic, but normal. Feel free to express your opinion, as I certainly will. The world is a much better place for diverse opinions and the expressing of same.

did you read the comment you quoted?

sineadw wrote: »

God, this thing has legs, huh? I'm still utterly failing to see why Andy got dragged into this too

STG - I think the original intention of people asking you to name the photographer is because you believed yourself so superior to him. They wanted to compare, not badmouth the guy/girl. There was an arrogance in the statement that got people's backs up. Gone way off topic from there, but I honestly think you brought all this on yourself.
.

As mentioned umpteen times, I do not view myself as superior in anyway, and have already paid attention to the fact that I may not have addressed it in perfect grammar or whatever so why oh why are we still debating the fact that I am arrogant, there was no intended arrogance whatsoever. I think it is quite arrogant here for posters to assume they know the intention of my post better than I do myself.

As for Andy, I did not bring him into te discussion, he was used as an example in the opening thread.

I would appreciate a moderators view on this at this stage because seriously, how many times can I explain one bloody discussion, it is getting ridiculous and you knwo what, if the posts were to come up in a google search, which I am sure is you think about it properly, i.e. a sig is not a post, I'd be pretty proud that any potential clients could see that I will not bow my head in shame because someone has interpreted a statement in a way which was not intended, bordering on cockiness or whatever I still will say I take great pics of my kids. Taking that as arrogant would be like taking any parent who claims their child is the most beautiful in the playground as arrogant, we all think this of our children, as mentioned previously rose tinted glasses.

I pride myself in the fact that I like to see the good in people, some say I am naive, some say I am too honest, but you know what I am more proud to be exactly as I am than I would be if I were disecting and attacking in the case of a misinterpretation.

Mods please.

sineadw

Ah Rachel - you can't seriously think your business is coming out in a positive light from this??! I was trying to give you some advice. I give up.

CabanSail

From a personal POV I think that it's good to have a robust discussion. Too often we are probably a bit too restrained on here. There is nothing wrong with people expressing their opinions & not agreeing, as long as it's done politely. Just because we hold differing points of view should not affect the respect we have for someone else. I have not seen anything here which would could be called insulting & hope it stays that way.

On the issue of Moderation, if anyone feels that a post is out of order then the correct way to deal with it is to use the Report Post button. That way all the Mods & CMods are informed & the issue can be addressed.

Covey

smelltheglove wrote: »

did you read the comment you quoted?

Of course I didn't, do you think I'm stupid or something

Me think thou doth protest too much

smelltheglove

sineadw wrote: »

Ah Rachel - you can't seriously think your business is coming out in a positive light from this??! I was trying to give you some advice. I give up.

And you think you are painting yourself in a good light?

Let it lie.

smelltheglove

Covey wrote: »

Of course I didn't, do you think I'm stupid or something

Me think thou doth protest too much

If I were to assume you were something you were not, would you not protest? Am I not entitled to reitterate that this whole thing is based upon misinterpretation?

melekalikimaka

:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p

i had to do something.... i feel left out

Covey

smelltheglove wrote: »

If I were to assume you were something you were not, would you not protest? Am I not entitled to reitterate that this whole thing is based upon misinterpretation?

A couple of people think I'm a great photographer, I'm not. I don't protest too much though !

smelltheglove

Covey wrote: »

A couple of people think I'm a great photographer, I'm not. I don't protest too much though !

As much as I'd like to say lol I'm not really in the laughing mood covey. you know what i mean by the question, is there a reason why you do not want to address it since it comes from your own statement?

sineadw

smelltheglove wrote: »

And you think you are painting yourself in a good light?

Let it lie.

Em.... professionally, I'm not a wedding photographer. I'm a multimedia consultant. My online rep needs are totally different to yours. I'm not sure trying to help someone in a friendly manner with some good professional advice casts me in any light really.

Anyhoo, I'm off to take photos of vikings

AnCatDubh

Keep on the issue people and not on the person.

If the issue has mis-interpretation, state that and move on. Don't get hung up on it. The discussion does not benefit from it. If someone doesn't want to engage on the mis-interpretation then move the debate onward rather than dwelling on it.

The discussion is what I think a lot of people have been missing around here (from direct feedback which I have received), and it is this discussion and opinions from all sides of the argument expressed freely within the realm of reasonable respect for each other which make forums like this one great.

Please don't anyone stray into personal attacks. I don't believe it has happened yet and hope it doesn't happen by the end of this debate. Again in the wisdom of the moderators of the time, the forum's charter has this covered - debate the issue / don't attack the person.

melekalikimaka

sineadw wrote: »

Anyhoo, I'm off to take photos of vikings

Covey

smelltheglove wrote: »

As much as I'd like to say lol I'm not really in the laughing mood covey. you know what i mean by the question, is there a reason why you do not want to address it since it comes from your own statement?

You've addressed it more than once. In your own words "let it lie" .

smelltheglove

You know what as much as I'd like to address each and every thing I'm actually tired of this and find it utterly shocking that this can continue to go on based upon a statement mistyped or misinterpreted that was not even part of this thread, my name and the issue was brought into this thread as others decided the need to include it, obviously I am entitled to explain myself however I am still at a loss as to why a debate can continue over something so trivial, a simple statement that was understood in a way that was not intended.

Calina

Rachel,

I've had a lot of experience at being unfairly targetted on this site and I am going to give you one piece of advice. There are times you make a choice - either to fight on in which case you will have to deal with the feedback you get - or step away from the keyboard. On occasion I have not had that choice. On this occasion, you do. In your position I would not have contributed to this thread. You were not compelled to do so. However, now that you have, all bets are off.

What I have most beef with here is that the debate over how we perceive other photographers has been massively tainted by your inability to understand a key thing. Great photographers take great photographs. They don't get up in the morning and say "I'm going to be a great photographer today." They take photographs that allow other people to say "that person is a great photographer". I do not know one really great photographer who would say "I am a great photographer". They know that they are only as good as their last photograph.

In other words, great photographers, they put a lot of time into creating their photographs. And they have a huge amount of patience. They are not pussyfooting around deciding whether they are great or merely good.

Quackles

Rachel, you're being unfairly backed in to a corner a lot here Just wanted to say that I understand what you meant in the original thread.

I don't think I'm a great photographer. I have never taken a picture I'm 100% happy with. I haven't taken a landscape shot in the last 4 years that I think is even worthy of putting up on my website - and I would love to take down the ones that are up there, but I've nothing to replace them with!! However, I'm as critical with the work of others as I am with my own. It bothers the hell out of me when I go to a professional photographer's website and see shots I could have taken myself (speaking in portraits here, because like I said, everyone's landscapes are better than mine!!).. I figure, I'm the amateur with amateur equipment, no training, no studio.. they should be able to blow me out of the water. My real pet peeve is pixie photo.. have you seen them?? They are appalling! I know you can hardly put pixie photo and photographer in the one sentence, but my friends show me the portraits the forked out €200+ for, and I'm aghast..

melekalikimaka

a good photographer doesnt THINK he's good.

He KNOWS hes good


if you have doubt you your abilities your probably not that good


my 2 cent


oh and yes i did say HE....:P

rymus

melekalikimaka wrote: »

oh and yes i did say HE....:P

CabanSail

A great photograph is one that fully expresses what one feels, in the deepest sense, about what is being photographed.

Ansel Adams


There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs.

Ansel Adams

Covey

CabanSail wrote: »

A great photograph is one that fully expresses what one feels, in the deepest sense, about what is being photographed.

Ansel Adams


There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs.

Ansel Adams

All about the photograph though and not the photographer !!

Calina

melekalikimaka wrote: »

a good photographer doesnt THINK he's good.

He KNOWS hes good


if you have doubt you your abilities your probably not that good


my 2 cent


oh and yes i did say HE....:P

You miss the point mel.

We are not talking about good photographers. We are talking about great photographers and great photographers, you know, we don't think about these things and feel the merely good lack ambition.

Covey

Calina wrote: »

We are talking about great photographers and great photographers, you know, we don't think about these things

OK there's one in the great photographer camp. Any more ?

melekalikimaka

Calina wrote: »

You miss the point mel.

We are not talking about good photographers. We are talking about great photographers and great photographers, you know, we don't think about these things and feel the merely good lack ambition.

come again calina?

i mean great... not just good sorry.

the greatest photographers KNOW they are great, and imo knew it way before it was said to them... confidence shows in photographs, consistant a+ images scream confidence to me.


i aint really expressing what im trying to say well. but do ya get me?

Calina

melekalikimaka wrote: »

i mean great... not just good sorry.

Jesus man, precision is vital. Otherwise you end up with unintended softness in the shots.

melekalikimaka wrote: »

the greatest photographers KNOW they are great, and imo knew it way before it was said to them... confidence shows in photographs, consistant a+ images scream confidence to me.

Consistant a+ images scream "good with the delete button" to me. But that is a feature of greatness. Ruthlessness.

melekalikimaka

aye i guess so, tbh i rarely think through my statements hehe. first thing that pops into my head i throw in... its an interesting topic

Anouilh

We could sweat the small stuff forever here.

This thread needs photos...



I just see myself as a person with a camera...

smelltheglove

Calina wrote: »

What I have most beef with here is that the debate over how we perceive other photographers has been massively tainted by your inability to understand a key thing. Great photographers take great photographs. They don't get up in the morning and say "I'm going to be a great photographer today." They take photographs that allow other people to say "that person is a great photographer". I do not know one really great photographer who would say "I am a great photographer". They know that they are only as good as their last photograph.

In other words, great photographers, they put a lot of time into creating their photographs. And they have a huge amount of patience. They are not pussyfooting around deciding whether they are great or merely good.

Can you show me where you get this from? I cannot recall debating against this view, I actually recall stating with numerous examples my definition of greatness, a photographer with a portfolio and respect of peers to proove their greatness. I never claimed to be great, just that I aspire to be one day, i.e. with a lot of hard work and concentration that I hope ultimately I will become great, which I assume all of us here intend to do anyway! So I dont understand your 'beef'.

Covey

I thought this was the cultural side of Boards not the agricultural :)

Fionn

and with the agriculture comes the Bull Šhit!!



ya know my sainted mother God rest her, used always say I was great!!

i'm wondering now was she being economical with the truth!!



anyway i'm too busy being happy making photographs to wonder whos great and who isn't!

ha ha

nilhg

Hey leave us farmers out of it..




Just a thought, in my case, outstanding in my own field ≠ great.

Calina

smelltheglove wrote: »

Can you show me where you get this from? I cannot recall debating against this view, I actually recall stating with numerous examples my definition of greatness, a photographer with a portfolio and respect of peers to proove their greatness. I never claimed to be great, just that I aspire to be one day, i.e. with a lot of hard work and concentration that I hope ultimately I will become great, which I assume all of us here intend to do anyway! So I dont understand your 'beef'.

I never discussed the question of whether you were great or not. Only that your posts tended to be open to misinterpretation and that you needed to bear that in mind when posting. I don't believe I have voiced an opinion on your photographic output in this thread as I consider your work to be irrelevant for the most part as far as the subject of this thread is concerned.

With respect to the above, ultimately I get it from your decision to ask Andy to answer whether he is great or good and the continued fall out from that.

Now normally I would try to re-rail this thread back onto the wider debate of how we perceive other photographers but I'm really not sure it's worth my while trying.

melekalikimaka

potlatch

I just can't accept that Ansel Adams quote that a good photo is a good photo. You could interpret that two ways, that (a) a good photo is something objectively intrinsic to the photo, or (b) it is impossible to explain what makes a good photo. But both get to the same point in terms of aesthetic judgement: photos are essentially good photos, or they are essentially bad photos. Everything relevant is within the frame, everything outside the frame is irrelevant. We simply know from photographic practice that this is not true. Why else would photographers pay such careful consideration to precisely in what context their photographs are presented? Maybe because their quality and message are altered by their context? That factors within the viewer, within the photo, within the context beyond the photo all have their effects?

This leads me to consider is the internet is not the best medium for displaying photography. At the very least, there are different 'digital contexts' which affect how a photo is received and perceived. A singular photo on a random photo thread, a dedicated C&C thread, a Flicker page, personal portfolio page, is that portfolio page categorised into photographic type (landscape, portrait), commercial products (wedding, babies, media events, gigs), project (a photoessay, artistic concept), etc.

smelltheglove

Calina wrote: »

I never discussed the question of whether you were great or not. Only that your posts tended to be open to misinterpretation and that you needed to bear that in mind when posting. I don't believe I have voiced an opinion on your photographic output in this thread as I consider your work to be irrelevant for the most part as far as the subject of this thread is concerned. .

The fact that you had brought this 'beef' up to something I was unawares to meant that basically I was covering any possibility of this being your issue in my response

Calina wrote: »

With respect to the above, ultimately I get it from your decision to ask Andy to answer whether he is great or good and the continued fall out from that.

Now normally I would try to re-rail this thread back onto the wider debate of how we perceive other photographers but I'm really not sure it's worth my while trying.

I consider Andy a great photographer and my question to him was in context of the discussion, if you have a 'beef' with me Calina, as a moderator, you really should conduct that through pm rather than stating here that you have an issue.

AnCatDubh

smelltheglove wrote: »

I consider Andy a great photographer and my question to him was in context of the discussion, if you have a 'beef' with me Calina, as a moderator, you really should conduct that through pm rather than stating here that you have an issue.

For clarity, Calina is not presently a moderator of the Photography Forum hence is the same as any user on this forum.

smelltheglove

AnCatDubh wrote: »

For clarity, Calina is not presently a moderator of the Photography Forum hence is the same as any user on this forum.

Fair enough Tommy, status still says so, even so with experience of same I do think Calina should know better than to make such a statement in thread.

melekalikimaka

smelltheglove wrote: »

Fair enough Tommy, status still says so, even so with experience of same I do think Calina should know better than to make such a statement in thread.

i know folk are ganging up, but i dont think calina was beefing you as such.

i remember the days when i'd get ganged up on... you know how i dealt with it?


look around SHRIMP seems do has disappeared

i'll give you a clue -

he's under my patio

Dodgykeeper

amcinroy wrote: »

Andy Mcinroy here !!!!

I just discovered this thread after my referrer logs went through the roof. I am the photographer that the OP refers to.

sineadw wrote: »

Thanks Andy I have absolutely NO idea why you were involved in this discussion TBH! See - random webness

Sorry to involve you in this thread Andy, I had no idea that the thread would go in the direction it has, was rather hoping somebody would answer the original question, I just used you as an example of a photograper I rated (not getting involved with the great v good arguement,)

amcinroy

No problem DK,

I'll leave you all to it now.

humberklog

Dodgykeeper wrote: »

I think it is perfectly acceptable to post the url of his website and to praise him in here, but if there was another photographer who I was not so impressed with would it be right and proper to say so and to post links to his work.

Is putting images on a website effectively putting them up for c&c and inviting critics to comment be the comments be either positive or negative?

I'd be entertained but very suspicious if a working professional photographer put up a thread slanting another working professional photographer's photo portfolio from their website.
Some photographers (like any profession) can be quite catty and they may well have a further agenda to push other than true critical analysis of the photographer's work and a forum like this could easily be abused for such personal/professional gain reasons.

sineadw

Dodgykeeper wrote: »

Sorry to involve you in this thread Andy, I had no idea that the thread would go in the direction it has, was rather hoping somebody would answer the original question, I just used you as an example of a photograper I rated (not getting involved with the great v good arguement,)

Ah riiiiiight - was wondering! Poor Andy just came out of nowhere for me. Should have known it'd be you