Photography as an acquired taste?

Promac

I've noticed there are certain photographers that people tend to go all gushy over but that don't really impress me anywhere near as much and I'm wondering if it's just something that comes with time.

I know this is gonna go down like a fart in a space-suit but Ansell Adams is one. I like quite a lot of his stuff but it doesn't blow me away. Is it that people are impressed with what he did with the equipment he had? Is it that he did it first? Is it just too advanced for me to spot what he's doing so well - but maybe I'll spot it later when I know more?

There's another on here, on Boards - I wouldn't dream of including a name but people seem to go wild for one particular Boards member and I really can't see it at all. The pictures are ok - I like some, I think others are terrible. Is it just taste? If so, I can understand it to a degree. I like wine. I used to hate certain wines and love others but now they've reversed.

Is photography like that? Anyone have the same experience?

Paulw

Photography, like any art, is subjective. You like what you like, and dislike other stuff. It's only natural.

magicbastarder

i can understand people being left cold by adams; personally, i prefer some of his stuff which isn't his best known stuff, like the aspens shots (which are still quite well known, but not as much as the half dome stuff).
an issue with adams would be that his style has become common currency, so does not have the impact now it once had, and that generally people are exposed to him on the web or through poster reprints which don't do an original print justice.

melekalikimaka

his skills in the darkroom, coupled with his photography are what make him so popular imo

Fajitas!

Promac wrote: »

I know this is gonna go down like a fart in a space-suit but Ansell Adams is one. I like quite a lot of his stuff but it doesn't blow me away. Is it that people are impressed with what he did with the equipment he had? Is it that he did it first? Is it just too advanced for me to spot what he's doing so well - but maybe I'll spot it later when I know more?

Meh, I'd be of the same opinion. He's just a bit boring.

Yay, mountains.

There's another on here, on Boards - I wouldn't dream of including a name but people seem to go wild for one particular Boards member and I really can't see it at all. The pictures are ok - I like some, I think others are terrible. Is it just taste? If so, I can understand it to a degree. I like wine. I used to hate certain wines and love others but now they've reversed.

Go oooooon, who is it? Is it me? Is it?

But yes, it essentially is just taste. We don't have to like everything, we should be able to question it and decide for ourselves.

magicbastarder

just because you might classify yourself as a jazz fan, it doesn't mean you have to like john coltrane.

sNarah

There is a saying in French that states «Des goûts et des couleurs il ne faut pas discuter» meaning, you should not question taste and colour.

Most art categories are like that, paintings, music, photography. And, like with food, a personal taste may change over the years, or perhaps you will appreciate something better because you know the story behind it.

So, the answer to your question is yes. And a good thing it is, just imagine we all like the same stuff!!

And who's work do you not like - I've my money on 2 choices

sineadw

I saw some beautiful Adams' prints in Edinburgh a few years ago. Gorgeously printed, technically superb, totally meh. So yep - very personal.

sineadw

sNarah wrote: »

And who's work do you not like - I've my money on 2 choices

I can guess at one

artyeva

i absolutely see where you're coming from promac, and i get exactly what you mean......but why should it matter?

just cause you can't see what other people see in a photographer or a photograph doesn't make either of you wrong, or tasteless, or less ''clued in'' or less ''advanced'', or any less or any more anything. i don't think it's something that depends on time either - it just depends on personal taste.

ffs, photography has the ability to capture anything the human mind can conjure up and hold it for display to others in the form of an image, be it print or digitally. are we really expected to all like the same small finite number of these images? of course not.

do i like ansel adams? yeah. can i actually tell you why? erm, no not really. his images just make my eyes happy. it shouldn't matter to you that/why they don't make you happy,

kdobey

I'm a relatively newbie so that may skew my view. While I think it is to do with taste I think ones understanding and appreciation also matures - in line with your own skills/efforts perhaps.

Personally I now look at photographs in an entirely different way to what I used to since I bought an D-SLR and started to educate myself, look at more pictures and try and take a decent one every now and again.

For example I used to think I took nice photos with my P&S now I realise that they were mostly terrible as photographs - (but lovely snaps).

Probably just like wine - you may start off like simple whites and find you eventually enjoy some complex reds.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing - some times I get quite frustrated with my own efforts when I come on here!

However, I get what you mean about some photos on here getting lots of thanks - sometimes I don't get it either! Perhaps in time.

Promac

It doesn't matter at all artyeva - I'm just interested in the idea.

As a total noob to photography I looked at images with way too much HDR and thought they were really cool. Then I played with it a bit and now I look at the same images and don't see anything of worth. I was just wondering if there are a lot more of that kind of thing in photography that I'm just not aware of. Are there techniques Adams used that I just don't see and therefore don't appreciate?

smash

If you like them use the thanks, if you don't... then don't

dave66

It's probably my stuff, but that's cool, because most of the time I don't like it myself

I like the wine analogy, think it's pretty spot on. I also think it's like when somebody says "whats you favourite song/film/book" for me it depends what mood I'm in.

Morrisseeee

what he did with the equipment he had? Is it that he did it first? Is it just too advanced for me to spot what he's doing so well - but maybe I'll spot it later when I know more?

yeah, yeah & yeah. I'm not his biggest fan, but I do admire the way he brought these great images to our attention, consider hiking into the great unknown/wilderness, with all that equipment, maybe only taking 12 photos for your day's work, and exposing/composing correctly, and getting the 'money shot' every time, yeah I respect him.

There's another on here, on Boards - I wouldn't dream of including a name but people seem to go wild for one particular Boards member and I really can't see it at all.

Would he be CRANCky ? or does he wear KLOGs ?

davmigil

A picture you like is one you can establish a connection with. So it depends just as much on what you bring to the table, as to what the picture brings. It's when the two click that you get the synergy.

artyeva

Promac wrote: »

Are there techniques Adams used that I just don't see and therefore don't appreciate?

the technique used shouldn't influence your appreciation of the image though, surely? by that i mean you shouldn't look for some elusive ''reason'' you like a photograph - the image should appeal or not appeal, shouldn't it? i'm just asking btw.

i can look at something like - well - take water droplet images for instance - i know that there's a lot of technical skill involved, and i know in the clique of water droplet image makers there's certain aspects that make an image successful, but that doesn't distract me from making and evaluation of the final image and thinking yay or nay. to me it matters not a jot the technique that goes into an image. i don't care what kind of gear, what kind of lens, what lighting rig you used, what PP, how long the exposure was, how you had to set up the shot. all that is irrelevant to what the image actually is - ie., a thing your eye looks at and your brain interprets.

to put it another way - sometimes film lovers get a hard time on this forum for liking film. there's a theory that some of us only appreciate the image because it's film, and that the image itself has no merit, or at least that there is no merit in the image other than the fact that it's film. it may not be an obvious subject matter, the focus may still be off, the colours maynot be realistic, or some other nonsensical reasons why the image may be ''of no merit''.... however, what's wrong with just liking an image based on what that initial reflex tells you. click here's a photo - ooh nice. click here's another - nope. click here's another - oh yeah that's cool. click here's another - meh. etc etc etc

not getting at you here btw promac - just want to get into yer head a bit more

Fajitas!

Morrisseeee wrote: »

Would he be CRANCky ? or does he wear KLOGs ?

Smoooooth.

dave66

I hope this thread can progress by discussing the concept that Photography is an acquired taste and steer clear of strongly alluding to members of boards.ie.

At the risk of trying to swim upstream, there are some Ansel Adams images that I love, I would certainly love to visit his shooting locations. Do I like all his stuff all the time - no. But as I mentioned (somewhat tongue in cheek) in my earlier post, some of my shots I really like when I first make the photo, but I often rapidly become tired of the image. There are probably 3-4 of my shots that years later I still like and am proud of.

I do think it's a mistake to right off any photographer completely, you may not like all of his/her shots, put if they have one shot that speaks/appeals to you, then they did a good job. For me photography is kind of like playing golf, I'm a poor golfer who aspire to being mediocre but hitting one (or dare I hope two) good shots in a game, brings me back to try again. When I shot film, I used to be delighted if I got one shot from a roll of 36 that I was pleased with.

I remember having this discussion with Les McLean and he told me, take the shots you don't like, put them in a drawer for 6/8/10/12 months and then look at them again, you'll be surprised how you feeling about the shots can changed and he was right.

Subjective absolutely and I also think mood dependent.

Promac

artyeva wrote: »

not getting at you here btw promac - just want to get into yer head a bit more

No worries - that's why I started the thread.

I like subjective discussions on this kind of thing. It's easy to google for the answer to specific questions but it's more fun to discuss broader subjects.

Dave, I honestly don't want to talk about specific members, it was just sparked by one or two of them and how others talk about them. I won't say who those members are so hopefully it won't be an issue.



On the subject at hand - I think I'm less likely to write these people off. If anything, I'm more curious about their work than a lot of other peoples'.

pixbyjohn

An Emperor who cares for nothing but his wardrobe hires two weavers who promise him the finest suit of clothes from a fabric invisible to anyone who is unfit for his position or "just hopelessly stupid". The Emperor cannot see the cloth himself, but pretends that he can for fear of appearing unfit for his position or stupid; his ministers do the same. When the swindlers report that the suit is finished, they dress him in mime and the Emperor then marches in procession before his subjects. A child in the crowd calls out that the Emperor is wearing nothing at all and the cry is taken up by others. The Emperor cringes, suspecting the assertion is true, but holds himself up proudly and continues the procession.

Thats what I think is happening with some people's views on certain photographers and their photographs.

Thecageyone

I think there's a lot of back-slapping goes on round here, popularity often wins the day - but hey, goes with the territory. I do feel like a lone warrior, I don't get the 100s of comments on every image I upload ... or maybe I'm just s**t? I don't care, I like what i do, and the odd few others do too, that's good enough for me. The day I do it just to get some praise, is the day I'll just give it up.

I do think 'some' stuff that gets posted is way over-rated/saturated/processed but then some brilliant stuff gets posted and there are some fine 'togs here amongst the mediocre.

As for Ansel Adams, I don't see his work as anything amazing, but I would definitely hang some of his pieces.

charybdis

I think it's difficult to judge Ansel Adams' work based on reproductions of his prints as he was very much a printmaker and not just a photographer. Conversely, I think it is possible to get an idea of Henri Cartier-Bresson's work from reproductions because he didn't make his own prints and so his craft was very much in the geometry of the image and not in the controlling of tones and optical properties of the print. Then again, Cartier-Bresson's work has also been criticised for being too cold and technical.

I like Ansel Adams, but he wouldn't be my favourite photographer and much of my admiration of him is not just for the images he produced but for his technical acumen, both in terms of how adept he was and how he was able to use it to realise his vision.

I do think photography is to some degree an acquired taste. Stuff that seemed very impressive when I was less familiar with the medium now seems trivial or gaudy, I assume because my increased knowledge of photography has permitted me greater critical faculties and a more developed appreciation of what is both possible and desirable in photographic and creative terms.

Like any subjective experience, personal taste is an intrinsic part of appreciating photography but I think it's possible to distinguish between photographs that are not to one's taste and photographs that are just not very good.

A photographer that I have been interested in for some time but am not really sure I "get" yet is William Eggleston. I can't deny that I find many of his images very compelling but I find it difficult to explain why or to deconstruct them.

smelltheglove

OP I''m with you in a sense. There is no one photographer that I LOVE or aspire to be like or anything, but there are photographs I like. The odd time I may come across someone who continuously captures images I like that wow me every time, but I never recall their names:rolleyes:

As said before, I look at it, if I like it instantly I like it, if not I dont. Simple as. It's like when I have clients choosing their final images, I out 2 pictures side by side and give them a couple of esconds to say left or right, I think the instant reaction is the one that matters, if you look at it and dont respect it straight away then keep walking so to speak. I think there is a difference in apreciating an image and liking an image. There are some old images which I really appreciate, doesnt mean I like them, I may appreciate them for the story behind them or for the lack of equipment used to obtain the final result but appreciation and liking are 2 very different things.

Tell us now, who is it, who is it?

sineadw

charybdis wrote: »

A photographer that I have been interested in for some time but am not really sure I "get" yet is William Eggleston. I can't deny that I find many of his images very compelling but I find it difficult to explain why or to deconstruct them.

I freakin *love* Eggleston. I have no idea why though.

It was this exhibition I saw in Edinburgh. So they were his prints. I'd thought I'd gain a massive hitherto hidden understanding of him by seeing them in the flesh. They still stirred nothing in me. I was so disappointed - I'd been fully ready to love them.

eas

I know this isn't really at the root of your questions, but some sound advice I was given long ago :

it's better to understand why you don't like something rather than try to figure out why other people do.

cliche I know, but it makes sense.

Nebezpeci Mys

I have to agree with the changing tastes - the taste for photographs changes as do tastes for food, movies, books and loads of other stuff.

For me personally, the image has to provoke some emotions, or wake old memories, or intrigue me...just some sort of a positive reaction, no matter who took it...given that these reactions are based on personal experiences, it's inevitable that the taste changes as well... Saw Adams' stuff from Yosemite some time ago and didn't really appreciate it. But seeing what he saw changed my 'reactions' to those shots... Does that make sense...?

Morrisseeee

I freakin *love* Eggleston.

Okay...

I have no idea why though

Wut !! :eek:

I think this sums up the 'Emperors new clothes' theorem

charybdis

Morrisseeee wrote: »

Okay...

Wut !! :eek:

I think this sums up the 'Emperors new clothes' theorem

No, that's a fallacy. The Emperor's New Clothes parable relies upon people not admitting their lack of understanding. You may be confusing it with the other, lesser-know parable of The Emperor Who Still Looked Pretty Good Naked Although It Was Difficult To Say Exactly Why That Was.

101001

As has been said before and is true with most things in life, art is entirely subjective. I feel though that there is a difference between 'good' and 'like'. I can respect good photography but i might not necessarily like it.

Understanding these differences i think helps you grow as a photographer...

kelly1

If we posted anonymously, I think the number of votes would be very different! Oh it's a Picasso, has to be good! Not really...

eas

kelly1 wrote: »

Oh it's a Picasso, has to be good! Not really...

Is that a David Brent quote?

charybdis

kelly1 wrote: »

If we posted anonymously, I think the number of votes would be very different! Oh it's a Picasso, has to be good! Not really...

Are you trying to imply that Picasso isn't good?

kelly1

charybdis wrote: »

Are you trying to imply that Picasso isn't good?

No, only saying that that an artist's name can have just as much impact, if not more, than the work itself.

AnCatDubh

kelly1 wrote: »

If we posted anonymously, I think the number of votes would be very different!

The old photography challenges used to run like that actually - perhaps fairer results than if you know who you are voting for.

There was a classic critique forum somewhere (think it might have been flickr) with this image;



The image is quite renowned by Cartier Bresson but people proceeded to give their well considered advice until someone recognised the image and spilt the beans. It read fun.

Different story I suspect if it had been attributed to the actual photographer.

Promac

Thanks for the replies folks - interesting discussion here.

Can't decide what I think of that Bresson pic. One the one hand I think it's clever - the composition draws the eye down and around like a helter-skelter and really works. But then, it's badly focused and, while the slow shutter speed indicates the movement of the cyclist, it doesn't really pull it off.

I suppose the question of the thread is now - if I spend the next 30 years at this lark - will I see more in this photo than I do now?

magicbastarder

you may find that you'll be less critical of minor technical niggles and go with the feel of the photo.

101001

kelly1 wrote: »

No, only saying that that an artist's name can have just as much impact, if not more, than the work itself.

This too can be a positive... If I see a painting think to myself 'thats sh*t' I could quite possibly completely miss something. But on the other hand if I know its by someone I respect in their discipline I might wait for a minute, try to understand what they are trying to do and find something deeper. Sometime the knowing of the artist can explain an image even more fully.

On the Bresson thing. Because photography is so dependent on technology I find that its hard to judge historical works with todays eyes. There are such improvements in the technology that you're eyes are used to a specific clarity in image. And in fairness to Bresson my ma could capture an image like above. But could she do it consistantly? Often the process involved in making the image and the meaning of the image are as important as the image itself

Thecageyone

AnCatDubh wrote: »

The old photography challenges used to run like that actually - perhaps fairer results than if you know who you are voting for.

There was a classic critique forum somewhere (think it might have been flickr) with this image;



The image is quite renowned by Cartier Bresson but people proceeded to give their well considered advice until someone recognised the image and spilt the beans. It read fun.

Different story I suspect if it had been attributed to the actual photographer.

I think I seen a similar, if not the same, thread/discussion on flickr. I did see one with this pic used - the comments were funny, but showed up a lot - people just ride anything they deem 'classic' - and often because they feel like they should. But the image alone, well, it's hardly anything special is it? C'mon.


I see it all the time here, mentioned earlier the 'back-slapping' - well, it happens ... people look at an image [I think] think ... 'meh' ... then look at the 'snapper' and suddenly wet themselves.

You can tell me I'm way off, but seen it.

artyeva

Thecageyone wrote: »

You can tell me I'm way off, but seen it.

you're way off.

do you see into people's houses? do you see over their shoulders as they surf the web? if not then you cannot possibly say with any certainty what so ever what goes through someone's mind as they look at images on the web.

promac, something you said there intrigued me...

Promac wrote: »

Can't decide what I think of that Bresson pic. One the one hand I think it's clever - the composition draws the eye down and around like a helter-skelter and really works. But then, it's badly focused and, while the slow shutter speed indicates the movement of the cyclist, it doesn't really pull it off.

this is interesting, as your initial or gut or whatever you want to call it reaction was that the image is clever - it appeals to something in you - your eye is drawn through the image - you've been engaged by it in some way.

but then something else takes over - a more detached or clinical or technically critical view of the image and it's technique. the focus, the shutter speed etc. it seems like you're critical of these aspects of the image as they're not ''the correct way to do it''. maybe you think he should have used some other way of conveying the movement of the cyclist, something that would have been more successful, more correct. [this is conjecture btw;)] am i right? am i right?

anyhoo the reason i find that so interesting is that the first thing you said there is why I like the image. i'm not looking at any of the other stuff, because it's not there for me, i don't see any of that. i'm not looking for the photographer to covey anything in a certain way, i'm just allowing myself to respond to what he conveyed.

interesting. i love this kinda sh1t btw, so don't mind me if i come across as a freak. i love the fact that you've opened up a discussion like this and you're able to actually communicate what you mean. it's either that or the wine. hic.

Thecageyone

Do you speak for the masses artyeva? if not, then you're as way off as me. I can 'imagine' - good enough for me to judge ... online. We are, after all, free to do so from the comfort of our lazy work stations. It's just an inkling, if you like, which can't be wrong.

charybdis

Thecageyone wrote: »

I can 'imagine' - good enough for me to judge ... online. We are, after all, free to do so from the comfort of our lazy work stations.

What?

Thecageyone wrote: »

It's just an inkling, if you like, which can't be wrong.

What?

Thecageyone

charybdis wrote: »

What?



What?

What?


Oh sorry:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/inkling


Note the word 'slight'.

charybdis

Thecageyone wrote: »

What?


Oh sorry:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/inkling


Note the word 'slight'.

Well, saying

Thecageyone wrote: »

I can 'imagine' - good enough for me to judge ... online. We are, after all, free to do so from the comfort of our lazy work stations. It's just an inkling, if you like, which can't be wrong.

makes it sound like you're saying: "I have an inking, it cannot be wrong" or "I think this completely unfounded thing based on highly selective evidence based on my flawless & objective analysis of a photograph's merit and my musings on what I suppose happens in the brains of persons unknown to me so, therefore, it is true".

Would that be a fair summary?

Thecageyone

Jesus man, talk straight would ya?

Imagine, and inkling, pretty much say, I am not positive.

Let's be straight, there's a lot of BS on here, and you're only helping to prove it by nit-picking my words.

yeah?

magicbastarder

101001 wrote: »

On the Bresson thing. Because photography is so dependent on technology I find that its hard to judge historical works with todays eyes. There are such improvements in the technology that you're eyes are used to a specific clarity in image. And in fairness to Bresson my ma could capture an image like above.

the 'clarity' has so little to do with whether an image is successful or not that it's moot.
is photojournalism today producing better images than it was in vietnam? a camera of today probably has as much processing power as was possessed in the entire apollo mission, but that is meaningless, because it's the photographer who takes the photo, not the technology.

regarding the bresson thing - my mum could have taken the same image too. but would she have? i think you're confusing the ability to trip a shutter with the ability to judge and frame a photo.

Promac

artyeva wrote: »

promac, something you said there intrigued me...

this is interesting, as your initial or gut or whatever you want to call it reaction was that the image is clever - it appeals to something in you - your eye is drawn through the image - you've been engaged by it in some way.

What I meant was that I find the composition clever but that the rest of it spoils the picture as a whole. Sure, I can appreciate that at the time the guy was using an old film camera that would be put to shame by my mediocre DSLR but still. My eye is looking for clarity, balance, vibrance.

The Model T Ford was a landmark in automobiles but is it a good car? I don't think so.

Maybe where this is going is just that photography is evolving - our idea of what makes a "good" photograph/image is changing. Actually, if I really think about it - if I try to imagine a really good photo - I'm probably just thinking about where I'd like my photography to be rather than what I think is good photography.

It's getting worse...

eas

Thecageyone wrote: »

I see it all the time here, mentioned earlier the 'back-slapping' - well, it happens ... people look at an image [I think] think ... 'meh' ... then look at the 'snapper' and suddenly wet themselves.

You can tell me I'm way off, but seen it.

Not only do I think you're way off I think this sounds petty and desperate.

101001

magicbastarder wrote: »

the 'clarity' has so little to do with whether an image is successful or not that it's moot.
is photojournalism today producing better images than it was in vietnam? a camera of today probably has as much processing power as was possessed in the entire apollo mission, but that is meaningless, because it's the photographer who takes the photo, not the technology.

Im not sure you understood what I meant... I never said anything about 'better'. The point was raised that the focus was soft. I was merely saying that what we are 'used to' as images today are markedly different from times passed. What we define as 'like' is heavily influenced by environmental factors and can effect an opinion of an image. As I mentioned earlier there's a difference between 'like' and 'good'

magicbastarder wrote: »

regarding the bresson thing - my mum could have taken the same image too. but would she have? i think you're confusing the ability to trip a shutter with the ability to judge and frame a photo.

Im pretty sure we are in agreement here as well. As I said

Often the process involved in making the image...

I was talking about the entirity of what went into the image... even more than what is seen in the image. Apologies if I confused you but lets not fall out... we agree on so many things

Promac

eas wrote: »

Not only do I think you're way off I think this sounds petty and desperate.

I think there's an amount of truth to it.

Here's an example - in the random thread. Someone posts a mediocre picture and people look at it and think "Meh". Then they look below the picture and it says "Long time lurker - thought I'd have a go at posting some of my crap". Then people hit the thanks button in droves. Ok - they're trying to make the person feel better in order to encourage them.

If that happens with totally new people then isn't it also likely to happen with old people? If you see a pic by someone who you particularly enjoy aren't you more likely to hit the thank button just to encourage them? To get them to post more often?

dave66

I was thinking of this thread last night and it reminded me of a workshop I did with Les McLean (yeah guy I mentioned before), I have a huge amount of time for Les, he is talented not just behind the camera but a master in the darkroom and also the lightroom. Anyhow we had been out shooting and as he always stress MAKING photographs and were back at the hotel to print some. There was one of mine that I was pleased with and wanted to print, he opened the file and asked me what I thought, I started to mention I liked how a path lead the eye to the subject, he said forget that sh*t, do you like it? Simple as that, do you like it, no faffing about. For me it really did bring things down to gut level. I'm not saying that we don't look at composition but for me I do prefer the gut instinct, do you like it approach, sure afterwards if you feel the need analyse why you like it.