Pet hates?

pete4130

pretty much the only person maybe?.....HCB just snapped what he saw (and waited to see what he perceived)....no idea of exposure with film....his camer was fixed 1/125th second. someone else processed and dev'd his negs and master printers printed them pretty much. He recalls in his life he's spent something like 1 hour 15 mins taking pictures (all the 1/125th of a second's added up). There is no denying he was a master of composition.

Adams on the other hand was incredible....measuring scenes he shot across many, many, many points and recording them and then using those recordings to print almost strip by strip across his glass plates...again a master printer. His images are also amazing....

I'm not sure if you've spent much time in a darkroom but if you have or ever do you'll understand the difficulties and time involved!

charybdis

ender ender wrote: »

I don't hate Cartier-Bresson, but the reverence he receives, jeez...

Adams too. Am I the only person who thinks this?

I think it's important to understand the methods through which they worked. It's difficult to even think about what photography might be like today if not for Cartier-Bresson and Adams.

I understand, to some degree, their work not seeming impressive to someone accustomed to modern photography, but in a way that just shows how inexorable their influence was.

They're also vastly different. As pete4310 has said, Cartier-Bresson was consumed by the immediate recognition and capture of fleeting form; he used the geometry of the frame in a remarkably pure way, only giving perfunctory consideration to how his images were exposed and the ultimate measurable quality they would appear to have. Adams was also concerned with composition, but his work is far more in his ability to convey his vision through the relative tonality of his prints and the degree to which he captured not just form, but the sense of his feelings about a place.

Arguably, both photographers were the first, or at least the archetypal recognisers of how the strengths of the photographic medium could be applied as an art form in a way that departed from pictorialism and classical art but still maintained a grounding in reality and the realm of the possible.

It's entirely personal opinion whether or not you like their work, but not treating them with reverence isn't really a tenable position.

ender ender

Perhaps I should've worded it better, of course their contributions are highly commendable. What I meant was they're so often name-checked (with good reason you could argue), sometimes you'd think that there weren't any other great photographers. People like Martin Parr and David Farrell speak to me far more, and not just because they're modern (and I'm genuinely not trying to wind anyone up, I think David Farrell isn't the most popular person on here...).

Promac

I think it's very important to point out that these people are only important to people who find them important.

Ainsley Adams is a good photographer in exactly the same way that Ricky Martin is a good musician.

CabanSail

Promac wrote: »

Ainsley Adams is a good photographer in exactly the same way that Ricky Martin is a good musician.

Is Ainsley Adams related to Ansel Harriott by any chance?

TinyExplosions

charybdis wrote: »

It's entirely personal opinion whether or not you like their work, but not treating them with reverence isn't really a tenable position.

Promac wrote: »

I think it's very important to point out that these people are only important to people who find them important.

Ainsley Adams is a good photographer in exactly the same way that Ricky Martin is a good musician.

I think the music analogy is a good one, and it's why I would disagree with charybdis. I don't think you have to treat anyone with reverence at all - it's like saying that you must treat Robert Johnson, Muddy Waters, Howlin' Wolf and the other Delta Blues guys with reverence because they kick started modern music -this is bogus.

You can like someones work, or not like someones work -it's a personal choice and up to you... the chances are that someone who is 'into' photography will be familiar with HCB and AA, and will appreciate their place in the history of it, but it doesn't mean that they have to like their work, or even view them as anything special -they were only photographers after all!

It's horses for courses

magicbastarder

you don't have to treat the delta blues pioneers with reverence, but you do have to admit that popular music would probably have taken a noticeably different course without them.

magicbastarder

and a certain amount of iconoclasm is no bad thing.

TinyExplosions

magicbastarder wrote: »

you don't have to treat the delta blues pioneers with reverence, but you do have to admit that popular music would probably have taken a noticeably different course without them.

That's exactly my point!

K_user

Oh there are so many…

Not being able to try something annoys me a lot.

Or finding that I can’t take the photograph that I had in my head.


Gear p*sses me off - there is always something else, just one more thing that I really need!


Photographers who believe that they are better. I’m sure you know the sort, they don’t know you, they have never seen an image that you’ve taken, but they assume that they are better. For example…I’m thinking of one guy I met recently who walked around in a white shirt, letting his lens do all the work, meanwhile I was getting down on the ground, getting dirty, looking for angles. Yet he was giving me the condescending look…


People who see you taking a photograph and get in the way anyway.


People who see you have a DSLR slug around your shoulder, so they stop and ask you to take a snap shot of them and who ever they are with, because you look like you know what you are doing. Then they start to explain how to work their compact. I’m sorry but its called a POS for a reason. (I‘m not knocking POS‘s or their users, I have one myself and still happily use it, but I am knocking those dolts who believe that their model is too advanced for anyone other than themselves to understand)


Standard, home based, “Glamour” Photographers - I’m sorry but its not art, its not about the photography, its just about looking at a girls boobs…(Again I‘ve seen some fantastic nudes, really thought out, and real effort put in to make a fine art image, but those aren‘t what I‘m referring too)


Vignetting can really make an image, if used correctly. But sometimes its used in an attempt to make a crap shot interesting, or to cover up bad technique...


How I'm never happy with anything, there is always something that I could have done better!

DaireQuinlan

K_user wrote: »

People who see you have a DSLR slug around your shoulder, so they stop and ask you to take a snap shot of them and who ever they are with, because you look like you know what you are doing. Then they start to explain how to work their compact. I’m sorry but its called a POS for a reason. (I‘m not knocking POS‘s or their users, I have one myself and still happily use it, but I am knocking those dolts who believe that their model is too advanced for anyone other than themselves to understand)

ehh , I think they're actually called P&S as in Point And Shoot, unless cameras double as Point Of Sale devices nowadays. Actually I wouldn't be too surprised ...

magicbastarder

i thought he meant piece of ****.

K_user

LOL - Sorry got into a rant and wasn't paying attention - be thankful that I remembered how to spell at all!

jpb1974

Those days when the roll just refuses to go on the reel.

magicbastarder

i managed to destroy several rolls of velvia while loading my hasselblad until one of the lads in DMC showed me how to load the damn thing. i hadn't spotted the little flap the film feeds under.

Promac

CabanSail wrote: »

Is Ainsley Adams related to Ansel Harriott by any chance?

Wonder how I managed that one!

iPhone auto-correct maybe?