| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/04/2012 03:07:57 AM · #1 |
Why is it easy to fake being a good photographer but impossible to fake being a good writer?
|
|
|
|
03/04/2012 03:21:50 AM · #2 |
| Not impossible. What do you think ghost writers get paid for? |
|
|
|
03/04/2012 03:29:26 AM · #3 |
i dare to doubt this statement Paul
personally i think i'd have much more trouble to decide whether something is to be regarded well written over something is well photographed or not (ofcourse included its a somewhat subjective opinion)
maybe it depends on how much one is into a certain matter
if i studied diamonds all my life i probably know to tell fake from real while now i could be fooled easily
so i guess your to much an expert to be fooled with louzy writing
Message edited by author 2012-03-04 04:03:31. |
|
|
|
03/04/2012 03:35:17 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Not impossible. What do you think ghost writers get paid for? |
it seems more often to get paid for and quality has no connection whatsoever |
|
|
|
03/04/2012 03:44:21 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by messerschmitt:
... |
Welcome back, Wiel. Long time no "see". :) |
|
|
|
03/04/2012 04:02:03 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by messerschmitt:
... |
Welcome back, Wiel. Long time no "see". :) |
thanks (we all need sabaticals nowadays;) |
|
|
|
03/04/2012 09:36:05 AM · #7 |
| Even google street view can capture interesting photographs. Hard to have that happen "automatically" with words. |
|
|
|
03/04/2012 10:39:18 AM · #8 |
not that anyone cares about poetry, but there's plenty of faking going on in that genre as well.
I think it has more to do with scope. A photo or a poem is a minor work, over so quickly. A longer piece of writing requires a certain architecture that is harder to fake.
On a similar note, I have noticed how in a magazine I'm much more likely to find a stunning image than a stunning piece of writing. |
|
|
|
03/04/2012 10:49:12 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by ubique:
Why is it easy to fake being a good photographer but impossible to fake being a good writer? |
The author of the Twilight books has faked millions into thinking she is a good writer ;-) |
|
|
|
03/04/2012 10:53:25 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by giantmike:
Originally posted by ubique:
Why is it easy to fake being a good photographer but impossible to fake being a good writer? |
The author of the Twilight books has faked millions into thinking she is a good writer ;-) |
No doubt. Many bestselling books are horribly written. Many are written simply to be made into movies. They are barely readable. |
|
|
|
03/04/2012 10:58:06 AM · #11 |
It is hard for me to know what it takes to be a good photographer, given that I haven't invested the tiniest fraction of the time I've invested on writing, but here is my two cents.
Photography can quickly impress the viewer, and as we see on DPC, the immediate impact is paramount for many. The nature of the medium is such that there is a small window in which the viewer accepts or rejects the piece.
Poetry, IMO, is more like photography than fiction is. Once you go from trying for the immediate emotional reaction to actually telling a story, the difficulties become enormous (poetry and photography come with their own challenges, but I suspect they are circumscribed by their very nature). Short fiction requires tight writing, the ability to hook the reader early on, and then keep them reading to the end. The reader has dozens of expectations the writer must meet. The writer is asking the reader for more of their time than the photographer asks of the viewer, so the challenge is greater, and therefore, most 'fakes' give up, or as suggested, they get a ghost writer.
disclaimer: I don't mean to say poetry or photography aren't as difficult as fiction, merely I don't have the experience in either to speak deeply to their specific challenges.
Message edited by author 2012-03-04 10:59:38. |
|
|
|
03/04/2012 12:12:47 PM · #12 |
The author of the Twilight series didn't fake being a good writer: she very accurately and convincingly portrays a relentlessly execrable writer. As does Dan Brown, John Grisham, and many other popular authors. Popular acclaim doesn't equal 'good' in literature just as it doesn't in photography.
Osiris makes some very good points.
How about the fact that in this digital age you can simply 'buy' a credible standard of performance as a photographer? Current digital era cameras, lenses and software will produce default (i.e. almost entirely uninformed and undirected) results that surpass those attainable by at least 90 percent of professional photographers from just one generation ago.
But the digital age hasn't made it possible for someone who can't write to look like they can.
Message edited by author 2012-03-04 12:15:27. |
|
|
|
03/04/2012 12:26:41 PM · #13 |
There's no "faking" being good at either one. It's up to those viewing/reading your work. If it's your story or your picture and someone likes it or it strikes a chord with a person or people then you are a good photogrpher or writer to those people.
Who decides if someone is good? It's not up to a select group of people who feel they know more than others. It's subjective.
I still don't understand what you mean by faking? |
|
|
|
03/04/2012 12:58:08 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
No doubt. Many bestselling books are horribly written. |
I do believe this is the golden nugget of the question. People will likely gravitate to the better concept rather than the better execution, regardless of the genre. |
|
|
|
03/04/2012 01:56:29 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by posthumous:
No doubt. Many bestselling books are horribly written. |
I do believe this is the golden nugget of the question. People will likely gravitate to the better concept rather than the better execution, regardless of the genre. |
This actually brings up an important distinction between good writing vs. story-telling. Many of the best-selling authors are not spectacular writers of prose, but they do know how to structure a story. World-shaking prose doesn't sell books (though it can get you pubs in literary mags), but great story-telling does. It took me about a year of writing to figure out the distinction.
Message edited by author 2012-03-04 16:25:44. |
|
|
|
03/04/2012 02:05:06 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Originally posted by posthumous:
No doubt. Many bestselling books are horribly written. |
I do believe this is the golden nugget of the question. People will likely gravitate to the better concept rather than the better execution, regardless of the genre. |
If better = familiar and quick to understand, then i agree. |
|
|
|
03/05/2012 02:15:09 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by chazoe:
There's no "faking" being good at either one. It's up to those viewing/reading your work. If it's your story or your picture and someone likes it or it strikes a chord with a person or people then you are a good photographer or writer to those people.
Who decides if someone is good? It's not up to a select group of people who feel they know more than others. It's subjective.
I still don't understand what you mean by faking? |
(my bold)
In answer to your question about faking, here's something I recently read:
Stanley Kubrick stated: "I believe Ingmar Bergman, Vittorio De Sica and Federico Fellini are the only three filmmakers in the world who are not just artistic opportunists. By this I mean they don't just sit and wait for a good story to come along and then make it. They have a point of view which is expressed over and over and over again in their films, and they themselves write or have original material written for them."
So that's one answer: artistic opportunism.
Another related answer is having no desire to produce something original, being content to make copies of images that were themselves copies of copies of copies.
But the key answer derives from the technology. A generation ago the genesis of a photograph included camera + lens + film + lighting + darkroom + photographer. To produce a consistently credible result, the photographer absolutely had to be the smartest link in that chain.
In the current digital era, the chain remains superficially the same (camera + lens + sensor/processor + lighting + post-processing + photographer), but now it is quite possible for the photographer to be the least smart link in the chain, and still produce acclaimed results.
I'm not saying that digitally-driven evolution in photography is automatically a bad thing. I think the democratization of photography through technology is a literally wonderful thing. And when it reaches its inevitable conclusion – of there being no professional photographers at all, and no specialist 'pro' cameras either (in fact no devices that are solely cameras), I for one will welcome it. And  tanguera's golden nugget will still be true.
I was in the OP just reflecting on the fact that digital technology has made it possible for almost anyone to take decent photographs, but not to write a decent novel. |
|
|
|
03/05/2012 05:13:16 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by chazoe:
Who decides if someone is good? It's not up to a select group of people who feel they know more than others. It's subjective.
I still don't understand what you mean by faking? |
maybe 'time'is the only judge te be trusted |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/16/2024 07:48:42 AM EDT.
