| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/25/2004 01:58:39 AM · #1 |
| I am currious. How many people here actually have formal training in photography and apply this knowledge when judging pictures. And how many people judge on subject matter than the art of the picture? |
|
|
|
10/25/2004 02:06:51 AM · #2 |
i'm not a good one to answer this but ideally you'd probably have a combination of the two. the only training i've had is some classes in high school, so I know some basic rules, although I still suck at applying them to my own photos, but i'd guess that a pleasing, interesting, creative or emotional image should always do better than a boring flat image that perfectly uses the rule of thirds or something.
|
|
|
|
10/25/2004 03:01:58 AM · #3 |
I have taken a couple of photography courses as well as the CAPA Fit to Judge Workshop. CAPA stands for Canadian Association for Photographic Art.
I try to apply what I learned when critiquing and voting.
|
|
|
|
10/25/2004 03:22:32 AM · #4 |
Pure amateur, no formal training, but a long informal apprenticeship ;-)
Message edited by author 2004-10-25 03:23:00. |
|
|
|
10/25/2004 04:17:24 AM · #5 |
| I have no formal training and it shows;) |
|
|
|
10/25/2004 04:31:23 AM · #6 |
To answer this question, I need to know what "formal training" means.
Does it mean an actual college or university degree in Photography (AA, BA), a few classes in college/high school, lots of reading, NYIP, an existing career in photography, working as an apprentice, etc?
|
|
|
|
10/25/2004 07:16:03 AM · #7 |
FORMAL TRAINING
Training that takes place in education and training institutions, leading to recognised diplomas or qualifications.
|
|
|
|
10/25/2004 07:17:03 AM · #8 |
| I've got 2 years of college (and the diploma that goes with it) in photography. |
|
|
|
10/25/2004 07:45:03 AM · #9 |
I am curious as to why you asked the question?
|
|
|
|
10/25/2004 08:36:54 AM · #10 |
| I asked this question because I am currently attending Ringling College of Art and Design for a degree in graphic design. I was thinking of switching over to photography though. I recently just started using this site again to get practice and display my work and then I remembered the reason I stoped using it was because people seemed to only judge on subject matter, not on the actual art of photography and that really pissed me off. |
|
|
|
10/25/2004 09:12:42 AM · #11 |
Whilst I've not had the benefit of any 'formal' training I'd like to think that I judge or more than just subject matter. I appreciate that there are some people on this site than do not, but I think there is a learning process going on there. That's also part of this site.
Perhaps you would give some of us the benefit of your formal training to date...?
My first question would be, what do you mean by "the art of photography"?
Message edited by author 2004-10-25 09:13:25.
|
|
|
|
10/25/2004 01:35:30 PM · #12 |
| I have always been an artist, and I have been in the graphic design industry in advertising for 20 years. I also studied photography: darkroom techniques and technical photography were my favorites. I was in the midst of setting up a home B&W darkroom when a program called "Digital Darkroom", a predecessor to Photoshop, was released. I saw the writing on the wall: I could do instantly with my mouse anything and everything I could do in a darkroom. The photography classes were generically valuable in terms of operating cameras (exposure, lighting, tripods), but the MOST valuable thing I learned is a technique that shapes my eye for composition: start a clip library of things -- anything, everything... pix, ads, posters, magazine layouts, etc. -- that catch your eye and produces an emotion. Label the book as you go, be verbose, add a sheet of tracing paper and outline the dynamics of the image. Explain how the tiny details make a difference. Break it down, chop it up, digest it, understand why it does things to you when you look at it. |
|
|
|
10/25/2004 01:54:37 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Thousands_Fall:
I asked this question because I am currently attending Ringling College of Art and Design for a degree in graphic design. I was thinking of switching over to photography though. I recently just started using this site again to get practice and display my work and then I remembered the reason I stoped using it was because people seemed to only judge on subject matter, not on the actual art of photography and that really pissed me off. |
I wouldn't judge your career on the critiques you get, and where you get them. If you enjoy it and you like your work, go for it. Just remember that no matter what area of art, it's a difficult living to make.
I have a B.F.A. from Arizona State University. Had a 3.0 GPA, got nothing but A's in all of my art classes, including Photography, and I can't get above a 60% here....so it just goes to show that Art is subjective.
Do what makes you happy.
|
|
|
|
10/25/2004 01:55:10 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Thousands_Fall:
I am currious. How many people here actually have formal training in photography and apply this knowledge when judging pictures. And how many people judge on subject matter than the art of the picture? |
I have had no formal training. I don't really understand your question either. To me, the subject matter is the most important element of any photo. How you choose to photograph it makes up the rest of the image.
|
|
|
|
10/25/2004 01:57:10 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by alanbataar:
... I have been in the graphic design industry in advertising for 20 years ... I was in the midst of setting up a home B&W darkroom when a program called "Digital Darkroom", a predecessor to Photoshop, was released. |
You are the only other person I know who's heard of that! We had a copy at work, but I never actually got to use it. Too bad it wasn't more successful because it's a lot better name than Photoshop ... : ) |
|
|
|
10/25/2004 02:00:14 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by Thousands_Fall:
I am currious. How many people here actually have formal training in photography and apply this knowledge when judging pictures. And how many people judge on subject matter than the art of the picture? |
I have had no formal training. I don't really understand your question either. To me, the subject matter is the most important element of any photo. How you choose to photograph it makes up the rest of the image. |
I beg to differ. You can take a picture of anything....how you light it, the angle from which it's shot, and the quality of how it comes out defines how we perceive it. Now, you may not LIKE the subject matter, but that doesn't make it a bad photograph. It just makes it a subject matter that is distasteful to you.
Now that being said, if you take a pic of a bowl of dog poo, there's no way to light it that's gonna make me think it's a good pic.
But take a picture of a nut and bolt, and you can make it just as interesting as a beautiful sunset.
To sligthly amend what I said though. You do choose the subject first, and then decide on a lighting scheme and point of view that will do it justice, but I don't think a subject has to be pleasing, or even inately beautiful, to have a beautiful picture result from it.
But JMO.
Message edited by author 2004-10-25 14:03:20.
|
|
|
|
10/25/2004 02:27:09 PM · #17 |
all my formal training comes from Hopper.
any small clue of knowledge I have comes from him :)
thanx Hopper |
|
|
|
10/25/2004 02:31:08 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by prozac:
all my formal training comes from Hopper.
any small clue of knowledge I have comes from him :)
thanx Hopper |
so basically, she's saying she knows nothing at all :) |
|
|
|
10/25/2004 02:40:49 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by atsxus:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by Thousands_Fall:
I am currious. How many people here actually have formal training in photography and apply this knowledge when judging pictures. And how many people judge on subject matter than the art of the picture? |
I have had no formal training. I don't really understand your question either. To me, the subject matter is the most important element of any photo. How you choose to photograph it makes up the rest of the image. |
I beg to differ. You can take a picture of anything....how you light it, the angle from which it's shot, and the quality of how it comes out defines how we perceive it. Now, you may not LIKE the subject matter, but that doesn't make it a bad photograph. It just makes it a subject matter that is distasteful to you.
Now that being said, if you take a pic of a bowl of dog poo, there's no way to light it that's gonna make me think it's a good pic.
|
I don't see much difference in what you have said here and my briefly posted opinion :)
|
|
|
|
10/25/2004 03:05:13 PM · #20 |
[quote]
I beg to differ. You can take a picture of anything....how you light it, the angle from which it's shot, and the quality of how it comes out defines how we perceive it. Now, you may not LIKE the subject matter, but that doesn't make it a bad photograph. It just makes it a subject matter that is distasteful to you. [/quote]
This is what I am trying to get at, and the people on this site are just beguining to piss me off more and more. I hate getting comments, and reading coments to other people, about shitty subject matter, when its a beautifully composed shot. Thats what photography is about. Any one can go out and take a picture, but it takes a true photographer to take a good picture. People should start saying what the reasoning for their angles, lighting, and subject matter in the self comments section. People should also state the reason why they vote for things. I remember a picture I gave a one to got first place. There was nothing asteatically pleasing about it, and it was week subject matter too. Thats just my opinion though. Take it for what its worth |
|
|
|
10/25/2004 04:19:39 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Thousands_Fall:
I hate getting comments, and reading coments to other people, about shitty subject matter, when its a beautifully composed shot. Thats what photography is about. Any one can go out and take a picture, but it takes a true photographer to take a good picture. |
While we are begging to differ, I beg to differ.
Anyone who considers photography to be an art has to also find a way to connect the viewer with the image. A 'good' picture carries no weight on its own. It has to be good because someone enjoys viewing it. The subject you choose for your photo has to play a role in the overall quality of the image. We all know that different people like different things, so the subject you choose will be liked by some and not by others.
If someone views your image and doesn't like the subject for whatever the reason may be, the technical aspects that went into the work may not matter.
If someone loves the subject of your photograph, they may not care one bit about the technical aspects that went into it.
|
|
|
|
10/25/2004 04:24:53 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I don't see much difference in what you have said here and my briefly posted opinion :) |
Because you're putting the subject before the depiction thereof, and I think that's putting the cart before the horse. No matter. Your work is wonderful, so I really shouldn't argue with you. LOL.
I guess what I mean to say is, you're not going to please everyone with the subject you choose...so if you put the subject above all else, or rather finding a suitable subject for your viewer above all else, then you're going to give yourself a heart attack trying to figure out what one thing will please everyone. I rather find a subject that is pleasing to me, and then figure out the best way to shoot it....which now that I'm thinking about it, that's what what you were saying and I should probably go back into my little corner and be quiet.
Message edited by author 2004-10-25 16:35:32.
|
|
|
|
10/25/2004 04:29:13 PM · #23 |
I don't have any college or highschool training.
I think I judge pretty well. I go through my stages where I vote high and then other times I can't seem to find a photo I like so I vote lower.
I guess it is what I like the most at the time.
I never used to like flower shots until I started taking them myself. That sure changed my attitude.
I don't think anyone really needs training or school to learn things. Get out do it yourself why rely on someone else to be the teacher. |
|
|
|
10/25/2004 04:42:32 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by atsxus:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I don't see much difference in what you have said here and my briefly posted opinion :) |
Because you're putting the subject before the depiction thereof, and I think that's putting the cart before the horse. No matter. Your work is wonderful, so I really shouldn't argue with you. LOL.
I guess what I mean to say is, you're not going to please everyone with the subject you choose...so if you put the subject above all else, or rather finding a suitable subject for your viewer above all else, then you're going to give yourself a heart attack trying to figure out what one thing will please everyone. I rather find a subject that is pleasing to me, and then figure out the best way to shoot it....which now that I'm thinking about it, that's what what you were saying and I should probably go back into my little corner and be quiet. |
This is exactly right. I have moved away from trying to please anyone else. I shoot whatever interests me. If someone else likes it, it's a bonus. If no one else likes it but me, I'm still happy. My scores over the last year or so here fairly accurately depict my interest in pleasing others :)
|
|
|
|
10/25/2004 06:10:02 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
...I have moved away from trying to please anyone else. I shoot whatever interests me. If someone else likes it, it's a bonus. If no one else likes it but me, I'm still happy. My scores over the last year or so here fairly accurately depict my interest in pleasing others :) |
I think what's happening, John, is that you have a greater interest (an increased emotional involvement) in many of the pictures you take today. I also believe that your changed attitude and ways have led to photos which, more directly than before, can catch and hold an interest.
Whether or not a picture appeals to so many viewers with scores on their minds, IMO, says nothing about its effective quality, value or merit. These attributes can only be determined by those affected, moved or disturbed by it.
We (at DPC) invest much energy on ranking pictures by popular appeal. Yet (IMO) we invest very little effort in making the best pictures popular.
I'm sure you would agree that there are a fair number of images here which have spoken to us from a remote placing (within a challenge). Some of these I would consider 'influential' even, when we look at how a way of seeing or rendering has moved other photographers to follow and conduct their own experiments. These are meritorious images, and they will be until they are reinvented or skillfully imitated, regardless of their popularity.
Sincerity (emotional investment on part of the photographer) often precedes and accompanies these images. The interest any number of people can draw from it is limited by their capacity to do so.
These are images not made for consumption, but for a specific purpose. Of course, 'consumers of images' will mark them 'unfit for consumption'. People affected by them, will cherish them, grow through them, celebrate them.
All that has happened, John, is that the pictures you take today are, themselves, more selective than those who vote them down. ;-)
At least, that's the view of the weather from my cliff.
|
|
