| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/24/2003 05:45:09 PM · #26 |
Okey...here goes..
This is directed more to John then anyone, since he kindly sent this link to me in a comment about my photo in the "At Rest" challenge. I'm a very open person, and try to see things from different perspectives, but the way you feel about looking at other people's children or pets, helps me to understand what kind of person you are. Even though you THINK you're giving constructive criticism by linking back to this thread, what you're really saying is that the mere PICTURE of a child offends you! I know darn good and well that my picture isn't going to win any ribbons, and I would have LOVED for you to critique my photo, but to say nothing except to offer the link to this thread is INSULTING!!! Tell me my picture sucks...that it's washed out....that the colors are all wrong....that I'm a horrible photographer....but DON'T tell me that a picture of my child is not worth putting on here! That's not constructive at all!!
|
|
|
|
09/24/2003 06:20:52 PM · #27 |
John: Isn't a broader criticism, against snapshot-quality photos in general, more useful? Singling out kids and pets, especially in a challenge like At Rest, where animals and children are valid subjects, seems to mostly be aimed at being inflamitory, not at offering constructive criticism.
I haven't gotten deep into the voting yet, but so far I've seen some awesome shots involving kids, and a few involving animals. And yes I've seen a lot of snapshot-quality ones that don't rate nearly as high. But to attack the subjects (which, like you said, hold an emotional bond for the photographer), instead of the quality of the photography, doesn't seem to have the goal of helping people learn, but just to try to piss them off. (OK, I suppose that can be a teaching tool, but if so you could have included more than kids and pets in your crosshairs.)
I guess I'm getting tired of people railing against "pets, kids and flowers", instead of looking at a photo on its merits. (And, usually, it seems the same people doing that are often the same people who bitch about voters being too strict about meeting the challenge, instead of just voting on the merits of the photo. Isn't it ironic? Oh, maybe just hypocritical.)
So, maybe if you focussed on quality (especially snapshot-quality) instead of subject matter, you'd find a more receptive audience. And, a snapshot of a car or a family vacation is equally worthy of your criticism, while an Anne Geddes photo isn't.
Message edited by author 2003-09-24 18:21:50. |
|
|
|
09/24/2003 06:43:22 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by christyrack:
Okey...here goes..
This is directed more to John then anyone, since he kindly sent this link to me in a comment about my photo in the "At Rest" challenge. I'm a very open person, and try to see things from different perspectives, but the way you feel about looking at other people's children or pets, helps me to understand what kind of person you are. Even though you THINK you're giving constructive criticism by linking back to this thread, what you're really saying is that the mere PICTURE of a child offends you! I know darn good and well that my picture isn't going to win any ribbons, and I would have LOVED for you to critique my photo, but to say nothing except to offer the link to this thread is INSULTING!!! Tell me my picture sucks...that it's washed out....that the colors are all wrong....that I'm a horrible photographer....but DON'T tell me that a picture of my child is not worth putting on here! That's not constructive at all!! |
If you re-read the first post in this thread, I think you will see that you have misunderstood what I said. I not once said anywhere that I'm offended by any photo. I don't know where you got that, but maybe you are making one of my original points for me. The reason I don't comment directly on those photos is because of this type of response. The photographer takes it personally. I also never said that a photo of your child is not worth putting on here. I quite often give tens to photos of children and pets and I will site some examples if that pleases anyone. What I'm saying is that you should consider avoiding the type of shots that people would consider to be family album snapshots. :)
|
|
|
|
09/24/2003 06:50:27 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
But to attack the subjects (which, like you said, hold an emotional bond for the photographer), instead of the quality of the photography, doesn't seem to have the goal of helping people learn, but just to try to piss them off.
|
The quality of the photography is exactly what I'm complaining about. The subjects of pets and kids are just the ones that I most often see that fall into this category. You can also put flowers into this category if you please... Any subject can be photographed in a poor way. My post was aimed at getting people to look at what they are doing and consider alternative options to improve their results. Granted, I did take an approach that is harsh. I did that intentionally also.
One of the things that I do often forget is that there are people who participate here with no goal of improving. I did not address that in my original post and I probalby should have :)
Your comments about quality vs subject matter don't mean anything to me. Image quality doesn't play a large role in my evaluation of photographs anymore, and it hasn't for quite some time. I don't often see a 'great' photograph that doesn't maintain decent image quality, but there are a few. Image quality is just as subjective as the subject you choose to photograph. What is quality to you and to me are probably not the same thing.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2003 06:55:25 PM · #30 |
Peek = 10
Growing Up = 10
Day Dreamer = 10
just a few examples... there are many more..
Message edited by author 2003-09-24 18:55:44.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2003 06:56:54 PM · #31 |
"Any subject can be photographed in a poor way ... "
What? Even the Stars and Stripes?
Ed
PS. This is a joke post. Please do not take it in any way seriously.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2003 07:00:00 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by e301:
"Any subject can be photographed in a poor way ... "
What? Even the Stars and Stripes?
Ed
PS. This is a joke post. Please do not take it in any way seriously. |
Absolutely.. there are examples of that here too :)
|
|
|
|
09/24/2003 07:05:48 PM · #33 |
I too am one of the lucky ones who got this link :)
I asked for critiques so I can learn. Admittedly I just threw one in right after I join just to get a feel for it and it's not the best I have done or will do but as far as being too attached to the subject, well YEAH, they are my kids or animals but I'm not attached to the picture, it's just that, a picture that I would like to improve or learn how to improve. I love taking pictures and often experiement with the camera at different settings but would like more ideas on how else I could look at something. I often try different angles and such and am still not sure exactly how much editing I can do to the photograph.
I love your work jmsetzler, it's clean, precise and thought provoking at times but I also love candid shots, people caught off guard, doing things they might not normally do and I love animal shots, just about any animal shot but that's me.
Thanks for the heads up, I will work on the more artistic side of it but I don't want to lose the reality of the shot in the process.
Deannda |
|
|
|
09/24/2003 07:05:58 PM · #34 |
Those are good ones ... I think I've missed seeing "Peek" before! |
|
|
|
09/24/2003 07:45:57 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
The quality of the photography is exactly what I'm complaining about...
...Your comments about quality vs subject matter don't mean anything to me. Image quality doesn't play a large role in my evaluation of photographs anymore, and it hasn't for quite some time. I don't often see a 'great' photograph that doesn't maintain decent image quality, but there are a few. Image quality is just as subjective as the subject you choose to photograph. What is quality to you and to me are probably not the same thing. |
I think you misinterpreted what I meant by quality - we were probably on more or less the same track, given how you started out your post. I didn't mean quality simply in terms of sharpness, color, focus, contrast - does it look pretty. I meant quality on a much broader scale, as realated to the end result achieved: composition, lighting, emotional impact, ability to communicate a theme or message, and probably lots of other things I'm not even up to the point of grasping in my photography. |
|
|
|
09/24/2003 08:00:09 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
The quality of the photography is exactly what I'm complaining about...
...Your comments about quality vs subject matter don't mean anything to me. Image quality doesn't play a large role in my evaluation of photographs anymore, and it hasn't for quite some time. I don't often see a 'great' photograph that doesn't maintain decent image quality, but there are a few. Image quality is just as subjective as the subject you choose to photograph. What is quality to you and to me are probably not the same thing. |
I think you misinterpreted what I meant by quality - we were probably on more or less the same track, given how you started out your post. I didn't mean quality simply in terms of sharpness, color, focus, contrast - does it look pretty. I meant quality on a much broader scale, as realated to the end result achieved: composition, lighting, emotional impact, ability to communicate a theme or message, and probably lots of other things I'm not even up to the point of grasping in my photography. |
The emotional impact is where a snapshot usually falls short. The only real emotional impact is felt by the photographer.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2003 08:31:12 PM · #37 |
| For professional photographers, portraits of kids and pets are probably the biggest money makers, along with weddings. Why is that? Because most people love to document their lives with pictures of the things they love most. It only stands to reason that aspiring photographers would try to hone their skills in this area and be drawn to photographing the things they hold most dear. While the learning curve on these subjects might not be interesting for you to look at, photographing children and pets is certainly a valid form a photography. And it seems most logical to me that beginners would try their hand at learning to do something they pay lots of money to have professionals do for them. Personally I enjoy great pictures of kids and pets and flowers and .....well, just about everything. And we are all here to learn, aren't we? The return on investment (of time) here is knowledge. We get that from the helpful feedback of others. Respecting the choices of participants' submissions (as long as they fit the challenge) seems a very basic part of what this site is about. |
|
|
|
09/24/2003 08:47:18 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by progersct:
For professional photographers, portraits of kids and pets are probably the biggest money makers, along with weddings. Why is that? Because most people love to document their lives with pictures of the things they love most. It only stands to reason that aspiring photographers would try to hone their skills in this area and be drawn to photographing the things they hold most dear. While the learning curve on these subjects might not be interesting for you to look at, photographing children and pets is certainly a valid form a photography. And it seems most logical to me that beginners would try their hand at learning to do something they pay lots of money to have professionals do for them. Personally I enjoy great pictures of kids and pets and flowers and .....well, just about everything. And we are all here to learn, aren't we? The return on investment (of time) here is knowledge. We get that from the helpful feedback of others. Respecting the choices of participants' submissions (as long as they fit the challenge) seems a very basic part of what this site is about. |
I couldn't agree more :)
|
|
|
|
09/24/2003 08:48:37 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
The only real emotional impact is felt by the photographer. |
Do you mean in a snapshot? |
|
|
|
09/24/2003 08:56:29 PM · #40 |
Just to point out in jmsetzler's original post, he probably should have said it like this:
What makes you think I want to see SNAPSHOTS of your kids and your pets?
Then maybe people would realize he was talking about all the shapshots, not the kids or pets.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2003 09:11:08 PM · #41 |
...or, he could have just said: "What makes you think I want to see your snapshots?" Would have been less incendiary. Or, maybe not. But I think he was looking to provoke a reaction as much as to make a point. (And, maybe, for an arguably valid purpose.)
Message edited by author 2003-09-24 21:12:36. |
|
|
|
09/24/2003 09:27:56 PM · #42 |
removed link of "Story Time on the Swing".
WildflowerJoy, Thanks again for the positive comments.
Message edited by author 2003-09-25 12:21:29. |
|
|
|
09/24/2003 10:23:02 PM · #43 |
I, too, got "the link" for my first-time entry. I'm a new member and rushed a bit to get involved in my first challenge. I would agree it could qualify as a 'snapshot', even though I was careful with the composition and execution. I waded through a number of cat photos (snapshots?) and felt nothing. Still, some were done much better than others. I'm pleased with my photograph but look forward to more constructive comments. Ultimately, my score in this challenge will probably substantiate John's criticism. On to the next challenge! Tom
|
|
|
|
09/24/2003 10:29:20 PM · #44 |
This photo of Marjo caught my eye when I first saw it.... Yes, it has a snapshot quality about it but it has more... would I want to hang it on my wall... I doubt it. But, it has life and it is interesting and shows emotion in an unusual way. Should it be hung on the photographer's wall I think it would be a pleasing and interesting shot to those who visit there.
Now, (and this has been building as I read all of the posts on this topic) Different people have differnt needs. Some may want to improve the quality of their snapshots while others may be trying to learn to make images that will sell. Different people have different goals and they both can learn. Everyone starts somewhere. If people will take the time to comment on a mediocore photo and tell why it is mediocore that will help them improve and not frustrate them and make them want to quit trying. I have learned so much by comments about my photos.... because of specific comments about the fuzziness of some of my entries I have searched out tutorials about that topic and I think I have improved. I read and reread tutorials about resampling and played with that to see if that makes a difference. I have dug deep into trying to understand apeture. The vocabulary in the tutorials is difficult as to be expected when venturing into a new area. It is work to learn to do something better. It takes time and feedback. If everyone would have just voted my photos low and moved on I would not have known where to start in trying to do better.
I think it is the same with picking topics. People who know the difference between a fresh approach in photographing a dog (and or cat and or baby and or bug, flower etc) photo should try to help those who have no clue that their photo is just a mediocore snapshot type of image. The best thing done in this discussion (in my opinion) is the posting of the 10's given by jmsetzler. That is a start at helping others to see the difference. The thing that helped the least (again, in my opinion) is the link to the rant on the comments for the entries. Link to a site that teaches people about this topic. Share how you learned how to pick great subjects, ask questions in the comments that might lead someone to reconsider their subject. All of these things would be instructional and actually help the photographer learn. |
|
|
|
09/24/2003 10:48:09 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
What makes you think I want to see snapshots of your kids and your pets? Do you carry your family photo album around with you and ask strangers for feedback? Your kids and your pets are cute and funny, but they probably don't command much interest from anyone who doesn't know you.
. |
Oh and I just had to answer this part personally :)
No, I do not carry my family photo album around with me but strangely enough my pictures do command a lot of interest on Webshots, where I keep many of my other candid shots. Over 700 hits last week.
I was directed to this site by a person I met on another site and hoping to get new ideas and tricks to make my photos even more memorable and who knows, maybe some day I can sell the prints, but if I don't, no big deal.
Deannda
Thanks again |
|
|
|
09/25/2003 12:27:15 AM · #46 |
I have a pet picture in my portfolio and I would like to post it on this board (I want to know if it would be classified as a snapshot)
Will someone please help me get it from my portfolio to here?
|
|
|
|
09/25/2003 12:33:45 AM · #47 |
| Start by reading this Tutorial. |
|
|
|
09/25/2003 12:37:11 AM · #48 |
I think kids' and pets' pictures are of interest to others who have kids and pets. (Snapshot or otherwise) Is that too simplistic?
I think jmsetzler may have neither. |
|
|
|
09/25/2003 12:38:42 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by christyrack:
Okey...here goes..
This is directed more to John then anyone, since he kindly sent this link to me in a comment about my photo in the "At Rest" challenge. I'm a very open person, and try to see things from different perspectives, but the way you feel about looking at other people's children or pets, helps me to understand what kind of person you are. Even though you THINK you're giving constructive criticism by linking back to this thread, what you're really saying is that the mere PICTURE of a child offends you! I know darn good and well that my picture isn't going to win any ribbons, and I would have LOVED for you to critique my photo, but to say nothing except to offer the link to this thread is INSULTING!!! Tell me my picture sucks...that it's washed out....that the colors are all wrong....that I'm a horrible photographer....but DON'T tell me that a picture of my child is not worth putting on here! That's not constructive at all!! |
If you re-read the first post in this thread, I think you will see that you have misunderstood what I said. I not once said anywhere that I'm offended by any photo. I don't know where you got that, but maybe you are making one of my original points for me. The reason I don't comment directly on those photos is because of this type of response. The photographer takes it personally. I also never said that a photo of your child is not worth putting on here. I quite often give tens to photos of children and pets and I will site some examples if that pleases anyone. What I'm saying is that you should consider avoiding the type of shots that people would consider to be family album snapshots. :) |
My apologies to John for attacking him earlier...I was mad NOT because you were saying kids and pets are not audience friendly subjects....but because you failed to critique it at all, leaving in its place, a link to this rant. This comes to mind....I submit a picture of a bible....someone leaves in the comment area a link to an Athiest website (which has happened) Anyway...sorry again John....I really do like your photos, and wished you could have given me something more constructive to work with on my picture! :)
Sincerely, Christy :)
|
|
|
|
09/25/2003 12:42:12 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by clues56:
I think kids' and pets' pictures are of interest to others who have kids and pets. (Snapshot or otherwise) Is that too simplistic?
I think jmsetzler may have neither. |
He doesn't have kids, but he does have a cat. Or he did at one point.
|
|
