Photography as an acquired taste?

jpb1974

Here's an example - in the random thread. Someone posts a mediocre picture and people look at it and think "Meh". Then then 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?

What frickin difference do "Thank You" posts make other than irritating people that really have nothing better to worry about?

To me what is more poignant are the volume of threads where people go out of their way answer's people questions and you can't even get a "Thank You" back from the people who originally asked the question.

Kintarō Hattori

Promac wrote: »

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?

I think you're right Frank in people hitting the thanks to encourage a new user to post more. On the second point though I'm not so sure. There are some users here who produce great/interesting/quirky images BUT they aren't always great and flawless. I know there are several people here who's work I like and thank quite often. However they are just as capable of posting mediocre photos as anyone else and when that happens I have noticed the thank count being lower. Sure there will be some who thank them regardless but it's in the minority I feel.

magicbastarder

101001 - fair enough, sounds like we were talking at cross purposes.

101001

Promac wrote: »

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

Thats actually an excellent example... The Model-T is a terrible car but what would the automotive industry be without it... You could say 'Yeah someone wouldve come along cheapened and streamlined the system' maybe but the nature of cars and their manufacturing could be wildly different without that moment in time.

Photography is not dissimilar in that its defined, as a lot of things in life, by what went before. In the reading of an image we intentionally and unintentionally pastiche. Its how we read an image.

Promac

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

I think you're right Frank in people hitting the thanks to encourage a new user to post more. On the second point though I'm not so sure. There are some users here who produce great/interesting/quirky images BUT they aren't always great and flawless. I know there are several people here who's work I like and thank quite often. However they are just as capable of posting mediocre photos as anyone else and when that happens I have noticed the thank count being lower. Sure there will be some who thank them regardless but it's in the minority I feel.

Yeah absolutely. I just meant that Cagey wasn't "way off" as someone else said. There is a certain amount of back-slappery due to who people are and it's relevant to the thread - people liking pics because of who took them rather than on their own merit.

Promac

jpb1974 wrote: »

What frickin difference do "Thank You" posts make other than irritating people that really have nothing better to worry about?

That's the mechanism we use on boards to say "I like that". Exact same as the Like button on facebook. Pity there isn't a dislike button really - that might be fun (in an evil way!)

jpb1974 wrote: »

To me what is more poignant are the volume of threads where people go out of their way answer's people questions and you can't even get a "Thank You" back from the people who originally asked the question.

Some people see other internet forum users as anonymous oracles. Why would they respond to queries if that's not what they were looking for? Like those birds that pick the mites off a hippo's back - does the hippo say thank you? I'm not saying that's how I feel - just how I perceive those people you're talking about.

jpb1974

Eh.. right.. thanks for clarifying that... <rolling tumbleweed gif>

magicbastarder

Promac wrote: »

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

i'm not sure if you're using that to illustrate a debate about photography or just cameras?

eas

Promac wrote: »

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.

This only illustrates that clicking the "thank you" button serves more than one purpose. I have many reasons why I click that button and every one as valid as the other. If you can see there is a trend in who I "thank" and who I don't it has nothing to do with "backslapping".

gbee

Promac wrote: »

I've noticed there are certain photographers that people tend to go all gushy over ..... but Ansell Adams is one. Is photography like that? Anyone have the same experience?

You mean photography appreciation.

Adams was a consummate professional he deeply manipulated the public and actively created the aura around him. His stories, mathematical formula, zone mystery were all played like a master poker player. His genius lies more here than in his prints or books.

I can understand a modern digital age photographer being less than bowled over by his work today, it has not [IMO] aged very well and PBase & flicker are full of amateur equivalents that are superior [again, obviously this is an opinion, mine ]

Nonetheless, people like to follow, it must be the heard or sheep mentality deep down in our psych but most people want to follow and it is the same today. Once one reaches this charismatic level, then criticism is lower, tolerance is higher and communal peace is achieved in being part of the group [of mutual appreciation].

One can still like a photographer or a sports person, despite they not producing outstanding results continually. I personally tend not to like photographers but can appreciate one or more of their pictures.

elven

dave66 wrote: »

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.

I think what happens a lot in photography is that you have people involved with it who aren't necessarily otherwise creatively inclined, and they go about it in a 'painting by numbers' kind of way, and like to follow rules that say x=good and y=bad. It also comes from the difficulty in somehow quantifying the value of art.

The other point that's been hinted at in this thread that I think deserves more attention is the difference between liking something, and appreciating it. Usually 'I like this' means 'I find this aesthetically pleasing' but 'I appreciate this' means more along the lines of 'I find value in this'. The two are sometimes even mutually exclusive. You can appreciate a photo without wanting to hang it on your wall, does that mean you don't like it? In that case, don't be so quick to use the inclination to decorate your living room with something as the main criteria for judging quality.

jpb1974

Thank You =

I like this
I find value in this
I appreciate your methods
I agree with your viewpoint
I appreciate your assistance
That was very funny
Well done, you just put that muppet back in their box

magicbastarder

"i want to get into your pants" too. probably.


(goes back and checks all thanks he's ever given)

Effects

Thecageyone wrote: »

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.

A lot of the time it's not just about the image alone.

thefly

magicbastarder wrote: »

"i want to get into your pants" too. probably.


(goes back and checks all thanks he's ever given)

:D:D:D:D

smash

I rarely look at photographers because the bottom line is that I just don't really care! If something catches my eye I'll thank the post.

Even if it's not a great image but a tone/colour/shade... anything catches my eye to make me look twice, then it's done something for me.

I get tired of hearing about the arty stuff like "the thinking behind" that Bresson photo. It does nothing for me and the only reason I looked at it was because it's part of this thread. But isn't that what photography is about?

Promac

steve06 wrote: »

I rarely look at photographers because the bottom line is that I just don't really care! If something catches my eye I'll thank the post.

Even if it's not a great image but a tone/colour/shade... anything catches my eye to make me look twice, then it's done something for me.

I get tired of hearing about the arty stuff like "the thinking behind" that Bresson photo. It does nothing for me and the only reason I looked at it was because it's part of this thread. But isn't that what photography is about?

That's another good question. Is it about the image that's produced and no more or is it about everything that went into the production of it as well?

thefly

Promac wrote: »

That's another good question. Is it about the image that's produced and no more or is it about everything that went into the production of it as well?

Well now we are talking about genres.

Contemporary fine art for example is about the reason the shot was taken. Hidden meanings, under lying currents and juxtaposition.

Wildlife and sport is about "action" a lot of the time

Street photography is about the "moment"

Commercial is about making money :cool:

so on so on

I suppose it's a taste think. Personally I prefer contemporary fine art as I like to work at the image and take my own interpretation from it.

smash

thefly wrote: »

Personally I prefer contemporary fine art as I like to work at the image and take my own interpretation from it.

And I'd be the complete opposite. I'll take a photo of something that makes me think or makes me smile or invokes any emotion and hope that it comes out in the photograph. To me this is what photography is... capturing a moment. It's nothing to do with "the technically perfect photograph" and I find that with the exception of a few photographers, people that spend to long looking at the aspects and thinking behind their photos generally don't get a great shot because it's kind of boring and over thought out yet it's classified as 'arty'.

term

I actually play a game to myself by keeping the "Thanks" line off the screen when scrolling through the random threads, form an opinion, then look to see if the volume of "thanks" agrees with this.

It's the little things in life, really.....

elven

steve06 wrote: »

people that spend to long looking at the aspects and thinking behind their photos generally don't get a great shot because it's kind of boring and over thought out yet it's classified as 'arty'.

I sweeping generalisations...

I think what you've just illustrated is that the stuff that doesn't make you go 'ZOMGWOW!!!!!1!1!!' is the stuff you don't like, and therefore you don't like stuff that doesn't have immediate impact. It's hee haw to do with how 'great' the shot is, overall.

Promac

term wrote: »

I actually play a game to myself by keeping the "Thanks" line off the screen when scrolling through the random threads, form an opinion, then look to see if the volume of "thanks" agrees with this.

It's the little things in life, really.....

I've been doing the same actually!

smash

elven wrote: »

I sweeping generalisations...

Actually it was an opinion. What are you getting touchy about? Have I forgotten to thank some of your photos or something?

elven wrote: »

I think what you've just illustrated is that the stuff that doesn't make you go 'ZOMGWOW!!!!!1!1!!' is the stuff you don't like

I never even implied that, I said for me photography is about capturing a moment. Maybe not a moment that would appeal to everyone but if it appeals to me then I thank a post. It doesn't have to blow me away.

elven wrote: »

and therefore you don't like stuff that doesn't have immediate impact. It's hee haw to do with how 'great' the shot is, overall.

Bullsh!t, I said if a shade/tone etc catches my eye then I'll have a 2nd look and it mightn't be a great shot but it got my attention so I'll thank for it.

I can't understand how can you possible appreciate something that you have to look at and take apart in your brain to find out 'the meaning behind it' - that's toss. If it doesn't capture your imagination then what's the point.

Then again I said earlier "But isn't that what photography is about?" - it's never going to appeal to everyone.

elven

Hah. I don't need your thanks, thanks very much.

Just because your opinion is your opinion doesn't mean you're not making sweeping generalisations in the process of reaching your opinion.

steve06 wrote: »

I can't understand how can you possible appreciate something that you have to look at and take apart in your brain to find out 'the meaning behind it' - that's toss. If it doesn't capture your imagination then what's the point.

Maybe people enjoy the mental stimulation that comes from wondering what the image is about. Maybe 'pretty' gets old, and you start to look for something more from photography. Maybe that's what spurred this whole thread! Just because you can't understand it, doesn't mean it's wrong, or bad.

I think the problem comes down to people stating "this picture is crap" rather than "i don't like this picture".

smash

elven wrote: »

Hah. I don't need your thanks, thanks very much.

Just because your opinion is your opinion doesn't mean you're not making sweeping generalisations in the process of reaching your opinion.

Maybe people enjoy the mental stimulation that comes from wondering what the image is about. Maybe 'pretty' gets old, and you start to look for something more from photography. Maybe that's what spurred this whole thread! Just because you can't understand it, doesn't mean it's wrong, or bad.

I think the problem comes down to people stating "this picture is crap" rather than "i don't like this picture".

You're pretty moody aren't you :rolleyes: I still fail to see how you took such offence to what I said. you like one thing, I like the other.

And I do understand it, I'm just not interested in it and in my opinion there's not a lot of people who pull it off well. I never said it was wrong.

Calina

Alright.

1) there is no need to be nasty and condescending to each other.

2) Ansel Adams rocks.

3) the amount of photographic snootiness in this here thread is nauseating.

My life would be facilitated if you could all make your points while also recognising that other people have equally valid positions which may not equate to yours. Equal. As in "yours is not better".

Also, if you're going to fight and argue over the thanks button - here's what I think it means: it's the same as "like" in Facebook. It's nothing very significant in the grand scheme of things. I cannot believe I have had to plough through a discussion on what the Thanks button means.

As for the wider debate on how photography grabs you, it's basically like music. Some people like Lady Gaga and some people like Rachmaninov. Some people bash out Mary had a Little Lamb on their Casio keyboard, apply a techno drumbeat to it and call it avantgarde. Some people take another photograph of Torc Waterfall and call it classic.

Navelgazing it doesn't change it.

artyeva

Calina wrote: »

3) the amount of photographic snootiness in this here thread is nauseating.

where's the snootiness???? i don't see any snootiness. i do see a valid op that brought up interesting [to me anyhoo] points, in a thread that got somewhat derailed by a misunderstanding of what the thread was about, by people with some kind of axe to grind, or rather some kind of broken record that they refuse to stop playing and file away under ''B'' for ''Broken''.

i found promac's view interesting - not that i agree with everything he says but it's interesting to see someone else work through their thought process, and maybe come to a better understand someone else's point of view.

Calina wrote: »

Navelgazing it doesn't change it.

are you implying that to think about and discuss the reasons why we don't like/appreciate photographic images is in some way naval gazing? heck. in that case i'm confused. i thought this was a photography discussion forum...

Calina

gbee wrote: »

I can understand a modern digital age photographer being less than bowled over by his work today, it has not [IMO] aged very well and PBase & flicker are full of amateur equivalents that are superior [again, obviously this is an opinion, mine ]

As a modern digital age photographer who fully exploits a bunch of features which were not on the early film cameras I am massively grateful to the trails blazed by pioneers like Ansel Adams. I am fully sure that given a Canon 5D MkII and a Mac and a Photoshop Licence he would probably whip the ass of most wannabee modern digital age photographers.

His landscape work stands head and shoulders over most of what I see from Yosemite National Park on a day to day basis - and I get a regular feed of photographs from there. He brings me to his places more than any modern colour photographs do.

But that's just my opinion.

magicbastarder

we should have a 'post your most adamsesque photo' thread at some point.

charybdis

Promac wrote: »

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.

By the standards used by the camera industry to market new cameras I'm sure your DSLR is better than Cartier-Bresson's Leica, but I don't think you could say it's a "better" camera; I certainly don't think he'd have used a DSLR instead of his rangefinder if given the opportunity.

gbee wrote: »

Adams was a consummate professional he deeply manipulated the public and actively created the aura around him. His stories, mathematical formula, zone mystery were all played like a master poker player. His genius lies more here than in his prints or books.

I'm not sure if you're saying that Adams created a mystique around his own work by making it seem overly complicated or by using techniques he developed to educate and simplify the photography process for others. I'd sortof agree with the latter, but I'd strongly disagree with the former.

gbee wrote: »

I can understand a modern digital age photographer being less than bowled over by his work today, it has not [IMO] aged very well and PBase & flicker are full of amateur equivalents that are superior [again, obviously this is an opinion, mine ]

I think it's difficult to compare genre-defining work from the 1930s made on glass plates to derivative works made with a DSLR today. Saying that his work isn't all that impressive to a modern photographer is like saying that a renaissance-era painter's work isn't impressive to a modern painter.

dave66

Calina wrote: »

His landscape work stands head and shoulders over most of what I see from Yosemite National Park on a day to day basis - and I get a regular feed of photographs from there. He brings me to his places more than any modern colour photographs do.

I'm currently enjoying dipping into the book Ansel Adams in Colour:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ansel-Adams-Color/dp/0316056413/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1280323838&sr=8-1

Interesting to see another side of his work

Calina

His portraits are well worth a look as well.

davmigil

Promac wrote:

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.

The photograph won't change, you might. It's impossible to say really.

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?

Again it's hard to say. I'm am sure some people are impressed with what he did with the equipment me had. People like things on different levels, some people appreciate the printing etc. Others haven't got a clue what equipment he had and still love his stuff (I know plenty of people with no interest in photography as such and who just like the look of his pictures).
And yes, he was a very good self-publicist too. I'm sure there are millions of fantastic pictures by unknowns out there, but if nobody sees them...

If you mean by the first, the first to photograph Yosemite, he wasn't by a fair bit (Muybridge and Watkins were there before him, photographing many of the same views with even more arduous equipment, maybe others too).

On the 'spotting it later', I'm sure a deeper understanding of his technique might lead you to a greater (or lesser) appreciation of Ansel Adams, his pictures still probably won't blow you away. It's not Adams or your fault though

Promac wrote:

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.

It's probably just taste alright!

Is photography like that? Anyone have the same experience?

I think photography is like that. It's very subjective and hard to nail down. Heck, I usually don't know if I like a photograph I took myself.

Context too can be very important. That includes knowing who the photographer was, knowing something about the subject, the picture before and after it etc. We don't look at photographs in isolation. All these factors change our perceptions. It's a lot more complex than it appears. Sometimes though it just comes down to liking something or not liking. You can find or make up reasons, but it usually doesn't change your initial reaction.

ThOnda

Ansel Adams was skillful craftsman. And he produced even some good photographs. His pictures are technically excellent. Especially for a calendar. But once you turn the page at the end of the month, you won't find yourself going back to that picture again.

But back to the topic.

Thumbs up is nice way how to express my thanks or praise for post. Either for words in or the picture. If I find interest in the picture and the picture is worth of my studium (I have to read Barthes again, just to get annoyed), the cursor will hover overt he thumbs up button sooner or later.

Unfortunately, there is no thumbs down. Maybe fortunately. As I have learned here quite often, opinion on a photograph is very often mistaken as a personal attack or argument.

It is bloody electronic picture in a public forum on the internet. Show me single one photographer in the whole world that could say that every their picture is excellent and cannot be criticised? If you are able to explain why you think that a picture is sh;te, do it. If not, don't. Don't go personally if somebody has different opinion on the picture. Express your opinion and don't attack people with different opinion. Simples. Grow up.

101001

ThOnda wrote: »

A....If I find interest in the picture and the picture is worth of my studium (I have to read Barthes again, just to get annoyed)

did you just punk... tum this thread?