| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/17/2004 12:21:43 AM · #1 |
Originally posted by wwjdwithca:
It's not that art isn't subjective. A photo should not be judged on it's technical merit alone, but of the story that it tells as well. Allow the images to move you, and take that in to account when considering it's value. |
I understand the argument, but it hasn't led me anywhere. And I'm very skeptical of the generalisms proffered in support of it. The suggestion that people don't take time to appreciate the art in the photos on this site seems hollow to me. I say "to me" because I do not pretend to speak to what others see in photos (and I do not believe anyone else can, a big part of why I suggest the argument is hollow).
Many others have set forth the simple reality: The images that win ribbons are the ones that appeal to the most people. Some may find them trite, others may find them moving. Different art strikes different people differently. To suggest that people do not take time to be moved by the photos they see is to suggest that no one could or should be moved by the winning photos, or that they should have been moved by different photos. Far too general and overly simplified IMO.
I'd be willing to bet that the average voter rates the "artsy" shots they like high and the artsy shots they don't like somewhat low. I'm very skeptical of any argument that suggests most people vote all "artsy" shots low, or because an artsy shot didn't score well, people COULD NOT have taken any time to appreciate it/it was too deep for the simpletons to comprehend. Yet, these are the underlying tenets of every post I've seen on this topic that pans the bastardly, ill-begotten "stock" photo. lol |
|
|
|
01/16/2004 09:05:58 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by Patents4u:
To look at it another way, even if everyone suddenly became as artsy minded as some here demand (whatever that might be), I doubt the average quality artsy photos would score much if any better since people will always like different kinds of art. Then, I imagine, the argument would be that "people just don't understand good art" or some such thing.
Unless the base argument really is that people should all like the same kind of art? Or all art equally?
Seems oversimplified to me. |
It's not that art isn't subjective. A photo should not be judged on it's technical merit alone, but of the story that it tells as well. Allow the images to move you, and take that in to account when considering it's value.
Fact is, you can go to MANY photography websites, and the trite images that win ribbons on this site are compltely ignored as if they don't even exist. Now that's the other end of the spectrum, and that's skewed as well.
This is a good site. The format is fun. The statistics are amazing, but the manner in which people judge is.......(fill in the blank). |
|
|
|
01/16/2004 03:10:11 AM · #3 |
I still believe a lot of it comes down to a time thing. People don't take a good amount of time to look at the pics they are voting on.
I think a voting limit of 50 a day (well over 20%) per day or 12 hours or something may help in this. And the arguments over "I only have so much time, on this day, and want to vote on them all," illustrates why I believe that not enough time is given to the shots.
The artsy pics, or on the edge pics, might start doing better when people actually see the image, and get a better impression of the photo.
Message edited by author 2004-01-16 03:10:50.
|
|
|
|
01/16/2004 12:43:27 AM · #4 |
In the short time I've been visiting this site, the "stock v. artsy" debate has already been tossed around about 4 times. From this newbie's month-long perspective, good photographs receive good scores. That's good "artsy" photos and good "stock" photos with those terms being used in accordance with the definitions thrashed out in this and the other threads.
I have not seen well executed and composed "artsy" shots take a beating on this site. I have seen "stock" or "generic" idea based shots that were poorly executed take a pounding.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not suggestig that the scoring is dead even either. But the fact that a subject or perspective that is intentionally on the edge might not score as well as a more mainstream photo is not very surprising, is it? By definition, something on the edge will not be liked by everyone. If it were, then it would represent the mainstream, wouldn't it?
To look at it another way, even if everyone suddenly became as artsy minded as some here demand (whatever that might be), I doubt the average quality artsy photos would score much if any better since people will always like different kinds of art. Then, I imagine, the argument would be that "people just don't understand good art" or some such thing.
Unless the base argument really is that people should all like the same kind of art? Or all art equally?
Seems oversimplified to me. |
|
|
|
01/15/2004 11:46:50 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
So what I don't understand is how, say for example, a picture of a lone trainer (sneaker) in a Nike advert differs from a picture of a trainer downloaded for Getty? Or a photo of a F1 driver for a Budweiser advert differs from a F1 shot downloaded from Getty. |
The difference is how the advertisement is made. If you want a photo that looks just so, and it has room for text/logo in the X corner and it has such and such colors in it and the subject is taken form such an angle, and the subject has such and such colors you have two options. You sent a photographer to go make exactly what you want. Or you go looking on stock catalogs and pray a lot. Since stock images are generally conservative because their goal is to be used as many times as possible, it is rather unlikely that any of them matches the requirements of the ad. So the question that comes up is do we send a photographer to make exactly what the creative director wants, or do we compromise and work with the best image we found?
If you need exclusive license of the image (since I don’t think Nike would like to see Adidas using the same photo in their ad next month) often they pay the money and a photographer goes to make the photo.
Often in cases like this the photographer has very little or no say to it. His job is to go make what he is told. His job is to take ones vision and create a high quality photo. It takes special skills to be able to do that from a technical standpoint but also a personality that allows it. Some photographers simply can’t do that, where others shine. Is one photographer better than the other? No. Some people are better at doing some things than others – that’s all. Does it mean that this photographer that had no say is not an artist? Of course not. Nobody is stopping him from going to make fine art (after getting a phat paycheck) and express his emotions and feelings.
Here we submit photos to compete in a challenge that has a subject. Each one hopes his entry wins. Some approach the subject one way, others another. There is no right or wrong, there is no good and bad, you just hope that your image will appeal to the most people. In an area as subjective as photography that’s probably all you can hope.
I look at challenges here, as a photographic assignment. I am asked to go and make a photo of something and win the challenge. It doesn’t matter whether I do it with what some consider as “fine art” or “stock”. Sometimes it will be more emotive than others and that’s just fine by me. A photo is a photo and it is my answer to the challenge.
To give you an example, in my last and only entry (I am very new on DPC), I was having a cigarette and as I was looking at it I got the visual and the idea. I then sat down and made what I visualized (borrowing someone else’s hand). Rank-wise I did terrible. I was told that “this looks like stock but good luck”. See if I care if it looks like stock. In fact I could sell it. I made a photo of exactly what I visualized – that’s what matters to me. There are some that liked it a lot and some that didn’t like it at all. It’s all good. I just hope that it was done not because they put a label of “fine art” or “stock” to it but instead they measured it as a response to a challenge.
Hey cheers if you made it this far – I hope I didn’t bore you too much.
|
|
|
|
01/15/2004 04:29:58 PM · #6 |
This is really the "Question for the ages" regarding this site. You enter good quality artstic images on this site, and they are largely disregarded. You enter technically good images that have zero depth, and they are elevated to disproptionate heights.
Terrygee is a good example. She's entered some really nice artistic shots, some did pretty good, but the photos that won her ribbons were simple colored setup shots.
I think the members here are off on their usage of the term Stock Photography. I would classify them (winning shots) as Still Life, or just simply Merchandise Photographs. Stock Photography is very broad, and doesn't really define any one type of photography. The word "Stock" means library really. Stock images are used by people who need images of all types to use for whatever they are doing, whether it's making flyers, coupons, brochures etc. They're making a coupon for a burger joint and they need an image of a kid eating a huge burger, so they go to their stock images they have already paid for the rights to use, and drop the best image they have into place, and their off. Or they need a sunset, or the need an old couple dancing, whatever.
There's really no such thing as a Stock Photographer. Someone who sells lot's of stock photography is simply known as BEING GOOOD! |
|
|
|
01/14/2004 06:15:19 PM · #7 |
that snake is there all right...
cool
its a close up a butterfly, and a macro of a snake head... |
|
|
|
01/14/2004 06:00:46 PM · #8 |
Didn't notice myself ;)
Not sure what type it is..will try to find out.
|
|
|
|
01/14/2004 05:45:38 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
Hi Zeusen, is the butterfly on your profile the same as my butterfly ;)
 |
It certainly is, and a very good shot of one too, jonpink! I'd love to be able to identify it, can you?
Did you notice the mimesis of the rattler on its wings? To my surprise, everyone saw the eye, no one appeared to have noticed the snake in the challenge I entered it.
|
|
|
|
01/14/2004 05:36:26 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by jaimeegrl:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
accually whats really funny is that nobody seems to know what "stock photo" accually means.. |
enlighten us. |
being as i used to be a graphic designer (not a photagrapher), i would purchase photos from websites like www.gettyone.com to use in my graphic design.
a stock photo is one that is sold for commercial use. |
|
|
|
|
01/14/2004 05:18:38 PM · #11 |
Hi Zeusen, is the butterfly on your profile the same as my butterfly ;)
|
|
|
|
01/14/2004 05:07:01 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Successful stock images, are by definition, devoid of any particular brand or ties to a particular product - advertising images are by definition the opposite... |
While this held largely true for advertising decades ago, the maps have changed and notable agencies today avoid precisely this: product ads.
At the turning point: Apple (the 1984 campaign) and later, much later Benetton.
Message edited by author 2004-01-14 17:09:15.
|
|
|
|
01/14/2004 05:05:00 PM · #13 |
Mags right. I am one of the new ones - and learning thanks to threads such as this.
Lockjaw, I know the stock your referring to - crossed arms and all that, but must say I do see it in 90% of ad agencies (in the UK anyway) ranging from simple people jumping in the air for a Nike advert, to a boring hand and ring for cartier (sp?). Now take the branding away and it's just another clean and sharp image that could be used for a million different companies promoting a million different products.
When I was making ads for an agency in London, we had zero budget so I learnt to use the nicest image I could get my hands on for nothing, and get the copywriter to come up with some clever tagline and make it relevant. Hey Presto.
So what I don't understand is how, say for example, a picture of a lone trainer (sneaker) in a Nike advert differs from a picture of a trainer downloaded for Getty? Or a photo of a F1 driver for a Budweiser advert differs from a F1 shot downloaded from Getty.
|
|
|
|
01/14/2004 05:01:08 PM · #14 |
Had to get in on this one. ;D
I'm both an Art Director and a Proffesional Photographer. I do stuff that does great as stock, and then I do stuff for me. Any art student knows not to get so attached to their piece that they can't handle a critique. If the problem is more of a " I don't like who's critiquing" then you might need to find another audience that can appreciate what your showing them. ;D |
|
|
|
01/14/2004 04:37:49 PM · #15 |
1) one issue is that alot of people on this site participate because they happened to buy a digital camera and stumble across this site. most of them don't have any formal training or any knowledge of the history of photography much less art history, so many of the so-called cliches are new to them. Yes, alot of people on here are novices to photography. So they wouldnt be as jaded in terms of what they're looking for.
2) i think people keep saying stock but they really mean a subset of stock called 'decor photography'. i.e. nice, PRETTY images, without a ton of emotional and intellectual depth. Again, it comes back to people on this site not necessarily being from a background where they're jaded to that, and looking for more challenging, unique and original visions.
This site isn't very ' art school'. Ironically, alot of people who become creative professionals are very art school and they might not find this site that interesting.
I guess that's why different stuff exists for different demographics :P
|
|
|
|
01/14/2004 04:33:07 PM · #16 |
I agree. However, it appears even the familiar stock style of lighting, etc is out of favor with most art directors these days.
Interesting to get everybody's take on this subject nonetheless.
Message edited by author 2004-01-14 16:36:24. |
|
|
|
01/14/2004 03:29:47 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by lockjawdavis:
It's simply not being used by any major ad agencies I know of. Pick up most any magazine from a news-stand and try to find these stock shots.
For the most part, they're simply not there. |
That's pretty much a tautology though. Successful stock images, are by definition, devoid of any particular brand or ties to a particular product - advertising images are by definition the opposite...
|
|
|
|
01/14/2004 03:12:19 PM · #18 |
Yes, you can purchase Ansel Adams photographs from a stock image house (although to use it in an advertisement I believe you have to negotiate with his estate). You can most likely buy images from Bresson and Weegee from stock companies, as well. Clearly, the world of stock is an increasingly diverse and inclusive one.
That being said, the overwhelming majority of stock images are still faceless, sterile (albeit beautifully executed) shots that literally translate simple ideas. For instance, a pair of arms wrestling to connote "struggle."
I'm not saying it's bad, necessarily. It's simply not being used by any major ad agencies I know of. Pick up most any magazine from a news-stand and try to find these stock shots.
For the most part, they're simply not there. |
|
|
|
01/14/2004 03:00:50 PM · #19 |
I believe that most "Stock" shots ones that are good representation of a certain subject. There's a clear focus. Most advertising pictures are stock or shot as stock.
Message edited by author 2004-01-14 15:02:01. |
|
|
|
01/14/2004 02:40:04 PM · #20 |
Again would you define the great Ansel Admas as a stock photographer? I doubt it, but his work is featured in every major stock image house. Avaliable to buy and shove on a milk carton as fast as you can say cheese.
Now you say of your "ad agency" 'The irony is, we NEVER hire these (stock) photographers. Ever.'
So what differes from one of your ad images to one that can be brought from an image bank?
Not being ranty, just very interested as a graphic designer. Also what agency you with?
JP |
|
|
|
01/14/2004 02:35:48 PM · #21 |
double post opp ;)
Message edited by author 2004-01-14 14:40:41. |
|
|
|
01/14/2004 02:21:32 PM · #22 |
You lost me there, TechnoShroom
Anyhow, I agree with the Muzak analogy to a degree. Although it's maybe too disparaging of stock photographers.
Message edited by author 2004-01-14 16:37:00. |
|
|
|
01/14/2004 02:17:53 PM · #23 |
Maybe a good analogy is that "Stock Photos" are Muzak while "Art Photos" are koRn.
The first is heard in more places while the second has a smaller, but more committed audience. |
|
|
|
01/14/2004 02:08:36 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by lockjawdavis:
...then it's wrong...Most people in advertising ...it isn't us "advertising bods." |
And of course "most people" are in advertising righ??? |
|
|
|
01/14/2004 01:45:32 PM · #25 |
would you define the great Ansel Admas as a stock photographer? I doubt it, but his work is featured in every major stock image house. Avaliable to buy and shove on a milk carton as fast as you can say cheese.
So what differes from one of your ad images to one that can be brought from an image bank?
|
|
