Henri Cartier-Bresson - useless out of focus junk!

06/16/2009 05:27:33 PM · #176

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by dahkota:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Uh, that's semantic double-speak that doesn't hold up. An opinion on something objective is still subject to that objectivity.

So your opinion is that there is nothing objective in someone's opinion about art? Or more specifically, a photograph?

That is my opinion, yes. The only objectivity are the subjective rules that people have decided to agree upon over time. However, using them or not using them doesn't have the DEFINITIVE result that say, making an engine run has.

Interesting. I completely disagree with you, but I can see why our opinions differ.

06/16/2009 05:30:30 PM · #177

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

When asked "what do you think about this picture?" I think the typical person who has recently picked up a camera to make "art" responds by looking at composition of light/shape/texture rather than what street photography is really about (ephemeral moments). To the street photog this is moronic, but it is merely two people comminicating with a different medium in mind.

They may, therefore, look at Steve's picture:

and rather than noting the capture of the moment may just reply "haha, look, the one way sign is growing right out of his head!" To the landscape/portrait photographer who creates and controls his composition as much as possible, that would be a big error, but in Street Photography it is less important.

Now I understand. And its funny to me, if only because I thought the sign coming out of his head was the perfect touch of irony that helped hold the entire image together. I thought the sign was included on purpose...

06/16/2009 05:52:04 PM · #178

Originally posted by dahkota:

I thought the sign was included on purpose...

Unless Steve is operating on a whole 'nuther level, do you think he has the skill to capture the moment exactly when the sign was growing out of his head? This is an example of something that is out of the Street Photog's control. We want to capture the leap and since that only happens at a specific moment (and you can't ask the guy to do it again), you have to forget about the sign and the car and the background people.

I guess it's possible Steve sat there and shot two dozen people jumping over the same puddle and purposely picked the one with the sign growing out of a head, but I think it's probably just a coincidence of the picture and unimportant. (He can correct me though if I'm wrong.)

Message edited by author 2009-06-16 17:52:55.

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

06/16/2009 06:02:10 PM · #179

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by dahkota:
I thought the sign was included on purpose...

Unless Steve is operating on a whole 'nuther level, do you think he has the skill to capture the moment exactly when the sign was growing out of his head? This is an example of something that is out of the Street Photog's control. We want to capture the leap and since that only happens at a specific moment (and you can't ask the guy to do it again), you have to forget about the sign and the car and the background people.

I guess it's possible Steve sat there and shot two dozen people jumping over the same puddle and purposely picked the one with the sign growing out of a head, but I think it's probably just a coincidence of the picture and unimportant. (He can correct me though if I'm wrong.)

Does it matter?

K3Master

Pentax K-3

06/16/2009 06:03:38 PM · #180

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by dahkota:
I thought the sign was included on purpose...

Unless Steve is operating on a whole 'nuther level, do you think he has the skill to capture the moment exactly when the sign was growing out of his head? This is an example of something that is out of the Street Photog's control. We want to capture the leap and since that only happens at a specific moment (and you can't ask the guy to do it again), you have to forget about the sign and the car and the background people.

I guess it's possible Steve sat there and shot two dozen people jumping over the same puddle and purposely picked the one with the sign growing out of a head, but I think it's probably just a coincidence of the picture and unimportant. (He can correct me though if I'm wrong.)

Does it matter?

Only to people that think they're 'educated' ;D

ducks

06/16/2009 06:14:09 PM · #181

Originally posted by yanko:

Of course it matters if it was included as part of the photog's message. If it was, there's a point to be made to the viewer (or missed) and if it wasn't it should just be ignored as a bad coincidence.

Message edited by author 2009-06-16 18:14:31.

Ecce_Signum

06/16/2009 06:33:00 PM · #182

I love threads like this and its good to see how different people interpret the same image. The fact that this thread is so long surely suggests the image in question is art? the fact that it has caused such a debate far removes it from a soso image imho?

I'm not a big modern art fan but got quite excited last year discussing the 'crack' in the Tate modern with

Simms and

Gloda

Take a break for 5 mins peeps, go look at this and tell me if its utter carp or a decent modern rendition of how images used to be taken. I'd expect a sub 5 score from the voters here at dpc and much higher from a B&W appreciation society or 1920's archivist panel.

So, back to the debate.....

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

06/16/2009 06:34:11 PM · #183

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by dahkota:
I thought the sign was included on purpose...

Unless Steve is operating on a whole 'nuther level, do you think he has the skill to capture the moment exactly when the sign was growing out of his head? This is an example of something that is out of the Street Photog's control. We want to capture the leap and since that only happens at a specific moment (and you can't ask the guy to do it again), you have to forget about the sign and the car and the background people.

I guess it's possible Steve sat there and shot two dozen people jumping over the same puddle and purposely picked the one with the sign growing out of a head, but I think it's probably just a coincidence of the picture and unimportant. (He can correct me though if I'm wrong.)

Does it matter?

Of course it matters if it was included as part of the photog's message. If it was, there's a point to be made to the viewer (or missed) and if it wasn't it should just be ignored as a bad coincidence.

Interesting. So I have to wait until Steve reveals whether that was intentional or not before I can evaluate its significance in the image? What if the photog has no message? What then?

Message edited by author 2009-06-16 18:37:23.

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

06/16/2009 06:47:41 PM · #184

K10DGuy,

The point is not to make fun of people's ignorance of a famous photographer. I wouldn't have recognized the photo either. But these people have set themselves up as arbiters of taste. Their specialty is photography... but they know nothing about photography or what makes a photograph good. The HCB photograph is just evidence toward that point. The criteria they use are arbitrary and wrong.

Now before you say that taste is subjective... why is it okay to have a site like dpchallenge devoted to advancing the skill of photography, but it's not okay to advance the skill of looking at photographs? In other words, esthetic skill. The thread in question is satisfying not because I like laughing at ignorant people, but because I like seeing ignorant people who act like authority figures get their comeuppance. Even more, I like seeing their incorrect rules of esthetics fall flat.

Do you know how hard it is to be a good musician if you're tone deaf? And yet we (dpc) expect people to improve as photographers without allowing any discussion of looking. It is always dismissed as completely subjective. Everything is subjective. Don't let that shut down discussion, or judgement. Because once you do that, then all ambition, all human endeavor, all art, comes to naught.

Message edited by author 2009-06-16 18:49:59.

K3Master

Pentax K-3

06/16/2009 06:55:20 PM · #185

Originally posted by posthumous:

So YOU say.

Actually, seriously, a couple of points:

1. I don't consider DPC a place that advances the skill of photography.

2. I don't believe in aesthetic *skill*. I believe in the illusion of aesthetic ego.

3. There is no incorrect when it comes to aesthetics, since every human being is unique.

4. DPC is a sub-culture. What does well here won't do well elsewhere, and vice versa, thus showing that subjectivity IS really all we have. We can be objective in our art within small arenas, but never, ever on a grand scale.

5. Ambition, art, and human endeavor are forces unto themselves, and are not reliant on outside judgment. If that were so, nothing would get done. We create because we must. For us. Sometimes, it furthers the rest of us, mostly, it does not.

This is all simply a part of my philosophies and personal view on life and etc. Take it as you will.

06/16/2009 07:02:45 PM · #186

Originally posted by yanko:

Does it matter?

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by yanko:

Interesting. So I have to wait until Steve reveals whether that was intentional or not before I can evaluate its significance in the image? What if the photog has no message? What then?

Well, are you just being difficult with your question then? You asked.

[personal opinion]I think artists tend to have a reason or intent behind creating a piece of art. This is the raison d'etre for the work and is not open for interpretation. This primary purpose is known to the artist and may or may not be known to the viewer. One may also find other meaning or appreciation for pieces of art, but I put these in a different category. If Adams' Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico was meant purely as a composition of light and shadow I think it is not true to the artist to talk about it as a composition about death (the tombstones) and rebirth (the rising and setting of the moon). I'm not saying people can't find that meaning within, but it does minorly irk me when they take this opinion and project it upon the artist as if this now is the picture's raison d'etre.[/personal opinion]

Message edited by author 2009-06-16 19:04:25.

zxaar

06/16/2009 07:03:14 PM · #187

never mind

Message edited by author 2009-06-16 19:03:32.

smardaz

06/16/2009 07:08:02 PM · #188

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

1. I don't consider DPC a place that advances the skill of photography.

going off subject but i have to completely disagree with that, i have seen so many people improve trmendously on this site by virtue of critiques and advice. myself included:

one of my first challenge entries:

one of my latest:

06/16/2009 07:18:59 PM · #189

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by yanko:
Does it matter?

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Of course it matters if it was included as part of the photog's message. If it was, there's a point to be made to the viewer (or missed) and if it wasn't it should just be ignored as a bad coincidence.

Originally posted by yanko:
Interesting. So I have to wait until Steve reveals whether that was intentional or not before I can evaluate its significance in the image? What if the photog has no message? What then?

Well, are you just being difficult with your question then? You asked.

[personal opinion]I think artists tend to have a reason or intent behind creating a piece of art. This is the raison d'etre for the work and is not open for interpretation. This primary purpose is known to the artist and may or may not be known to the viewer. One may also find other meaning or appreciation for pieces of art, but I put these in a different category. If Adams' Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico was meant purely as a composition of light and shadow I think it is not true to the artist to talk about it as a composition about death (the tombstones) and rebirth (the rising and setting of the moon). I'm not saying people can't find that meaning within, but it does minorly irk me when they take this opinion and project it upon the artist as if this now is the picture's raison d'etre.[/personal opinion]

Not being difficult. Just trying to follow your logic.

06/16/2009 07:21:32 PM · #190

Originally posted by dahkota:

The opinion might be as valid (as you speak), though opinions are never validated (or validatible if that is even a word, because opinions are not truth statements) but it doesn't carry as much weight or value when one is less than educated in the subject at hand. For example, Bumblebutt Tony might have an opinion on how to build a race car, but I will take the opinion of a certified race car mechanic over his any day. Experience and education always give weight to opinion - deny it if you like, but Art and Photography, are no different from building race cars in that respect.

I know, and have seen so many educated, clueless "technicians" who couldn't wrench their way out of a paper bag.

If you don't have an inate mechanical sense, then all the training in the world won't do you any good.

Experience and education are only as valuable as the user, and a trained fool is still a fool nonetheless.

I was a mechanic.....I didn't stand around espousing theory, I fixed things. I also fixed a lot of things that came from so-called specialists.

Part of what is vtally important is the origin of the education and experience.....and whether or not the recipient knows what to do with it.

06/16/2009 07:23:15 PM · #191

Originally posted by Mark-A:

I guess it depends on what you class as educated, if experience and self learning is considered to be educated (or at least in the process of becoming educated) then I can almost come to terms with a lot of the arguements made afterall we are all learning daily.

IMNSHO, empirical knowledge, well gathered, is both more valuable and relevant than training in most specific areas.

06/16/2009 07:26:51 PM · #192

Originally posted by smardaz:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

1. I don't consider DPC a place that advances the skill of photography.

going off subject but i have to completely disagree with that, i have seen so many people improve trmendously on this site by virtue of critiques and advice. myself included:

one of my first challenge entries:

one of my latest:

I agree. I just pulled this out from the archives...

Back in 2007:

Commenter: You know if you turn her around so we can see her face you might get a better picture. Just thinking out loud here...

You: Really? I'll have to try that next time. Thanks!

:P

06/16/2009 07:31:41 PM · #193

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I think, and this is strictly my opinion, that, when a photographer 'snaps' a bunch of images and then takes them home and looks them over, anything he/she posts/makes public, perceived flaws and all, is intentional. Now, taking pawdrix's image for the sake of argument, at the time it was shot, the sign might not have been intentional. However, when he chose this particular image to make public, the sign became intentional.

What one crops out, leaves in, changes, doesn't change, points out, places focus on, tries to hide, anything, is intentional.

As an aside, my favorite part of DPC is having viewers tell me what I should have done (not in all cases, just some of them). Once I got a comment stating I should have removed a shadow or taken the image at a different time. The viewer didn't know that the shadow was the reason I took the image in the first place - it would not have meant anything without the shadow. As zeuszen pointed out (I'm kinda paraphrasing, forgive me if I misspeak his words), 'if you perceive a photograph as an object in and of itself, your perception of it will change.' Stop thinking of a photograph as a picture of a thing and start thinking of it as a thing in its own right...the world is full of wondrous things if we can get past our brain's preconceptions to see them.

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

06/16/2009 07:42:31 PM · #194

Originally posted by dahkota:

[quote=DrAchoo]...As zeuszen pointed out (I'm kinda paraphrasing, forgive me if I misspeak his words), 'if you perceive a photograph as an object in and of itself, your perception of it will change.' Stop thinking of a photograph as a picture of a thing and start thinking of it as a thing in its own right...the world is full of wondrous things if we can get past our brain's preconceptions to see them.

I prefer your wording. It's clearer. (Go on).

Intelli

Nikon D300

06/16/2009 07:47:11 PM · #195

Originally posted by dahkota:

As zeuszen pointed out (I'm kinda paraphrasing, forgive me if I misspeak his words), 'if you perceive a photograph as an object in and of itself, your perception of it will change.' Stop thinking of a photograph as a picture of a thing and start thinking of it as a thing in its own right...the world is full of wondrous things if we can get past our brain's preconceptions to see them.

I refuse to take a picture of my coffee mug just to make it look cool, by adjusting the light, and composition..etc. I guess this is the art side of things.. but I don't think of it as art..it's just stuff made to look cool.

Message edited by author 2009-06-16 19:52:45.

06/16/2009 07:54:02 PM · #196

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

1. I don't consider DPC a place that advances the skill of photography.

And as long as you feel that way, it will not be for you.

I think you'll find this opinion in the minority.

I am leagues more advanced as a photographer than I was before I got here.

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

2. I don't believe in aesthetic *skill*. I believe in the illusion of aesthetic ego.

Aesthetic skill is really just relevant experience. I can look at images much more skillfully to pick up on subtler aesthetics having become more acquainted with advanced skills pertaining to the usage of particular fundamentals as well as particular skills.

I don't even know what you mean by aesthetic ego.

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

3. There is no incorrect when it comes to aesthetics, since every human being is unique.

Roger that.......8>)

However, you can appreciate certain things that may be subtler once you've become accustomed to different types and styles of artistic endeavor.

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

4. DPC is a sub-culture. What does well here won't do well elsewhere, and vice versa, thus showing that subjectivity IS really all we have. We can be objective in our art within small arenas, but never, ever on a grand scale.

I disagree.......pretty much everything I've had that has scored above a 6 has gotten rave reviews elsewhere.

I will agree that some things that have done well elsewhere have gotten slammed here, but in most cases, it was exactly what we are talking about that got them killed here.

Technique, skills, details, composition, lighting, exposure.......every time I've had something that DID do well elsewhere that got slammed, was justified to a T by the comments.

Like it or not, the viewers and the voters DO have training and experience judging images. Though all of us hate the comment about a distractiomn, it's kind of rare that it doesn't have some merit, even though it may be nit-picking.

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

5. Ambition, art, and human endeavor are forces unto themselves, and are not reliant on outside judgment. If that were so, nothing would get done. We create because we must. For us. Sometimes, it furthers the rest of us, mostly, it does not.

Agreed.

BUT......if you offer your endeavors up for review, you have to accept that there will always be someone who will hack it to bits.

Sometimes that will be someone whom you feel eminetly qualified to do so.....8>)

06/16/2009 07:55:28 PM · #197

Originally posted by dahkota:

Originally posted by Intelli:

But isn't art stuff made to look cool????

06/16/2009 07:56:37 PM · #198

Originally posted by dahkota:

I think I see the process slightly differently. Steve might have gone home and looked at his two dozen shots and decided this one captured the essence of what he wanted the best BUT, damn, that sign is annoying how it grows out of his head. However, the capturing of the intended essence is too well done and the picture can't be just discarded for that imperfection. In this case Steve chose the image but did not intend the sign to come out of his head (and wishes, if possible, that it might not).

Is this just semantics? Probably. But I do think it captures the idea of how street photography can have incidental "mistakes" in it (things the photog wishes were not part of the picture) but the strength of the image is still evident. I view the softness of the stairs in HCB's stairway shot to be an example of this. Personally I don't think he chose a priori to make the stairs soft, but it was a "mistake" of either his equipment (a Leica) or the demands of the scene (perhaps it was dark and required a wide open aperture). If Ansel had shot a nice landscape soft he would have likely chucked it because the image itself is the raison d'etre. In HCB's work, the image itself is a medium to convey the true raison d'etre. Does that make any sense?

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

06/16/2009 08:38:04 PM · #199

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

If Ansel had shot a nice landscape soft he would have likely chucked it because the image itself is the raison d'etre. In HCB's work, the image itself is a medium to convey the true raison d'etre. Does that make any sense?

Certainly not if you don't know a lick of French. :/