The 28 Summilux and Shallow DOF: Why the newfound malice toward Bokeh??

[Peter H]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Listening to criticism is, in most cases, absolutely pointless, IMO. Photography is an individualistic expression and most criticism is just someone else vocalising, realising, actualising, what they are learning about their own work, their own perception.

 

But criticism has a great place in that stimulates creation.

 

 

I think there is almost always some value in hearing what others think if they are interested enough to make a comment in the first place, as long as you don't assume that you need to alter what you do to appeal to other people.

 

Or assume that some photographic ideas are intrinsically better (or worse) than others. As with everything, think for yourself but be prepared to listen to others. The two things go together. Which is, i think, what you are saying really.

 

 

 

Incidentally,  this thread (not your post by the way) seems over-eager at times to assume that people like me who have expressed their dislike for the over-use of bokeh-heavy photos are trying to lay down rules, and sometimes this sets off a defensive "I'll do as I please" reaction instead of a thoughtful discussion of a fairly recent phenomenon.

[jaapv]

I do not think this is a recent problem, given that lack of subject separation was used as one of the arguments against the new "miniature" (AKA 135)  film format in the early 20th century.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[gpwhite]

Edwardkarra says Thorsten's work is tasteful. His smiley moderated objection is that Thorsten's influence has spread the technique but not the art.

But maybe you just wanted to fit "shallow" in in a different context?

 

No, I meant that Thorsten's work is exactly artsy photography, as opposed to dry documentary work that attempts to replicate the same mental representations we assemble in the mind. The mind constructs representations wherein all is sharp, whereas photos in 2D beget a different impression altogether.

[Paul J]

I don't think it's OT at all. Probably the core of the matter.

 

Criticism is, of corse, unavoidable but ultimately unimportant. There comes a point where the negative and positive becomes the same thing: a reaction. That is the really the only thing I am interested in, over and above the actual taking of a photo, expressing my perception.

[Paul J]

Paul, you are opening another can of worms

 

I personally think that personal work, is just that, personal. But once someone posts his photos to the public, whether in the forum, or on Facebook, or in a gallery, the purpose becomes obviously to show his work to others, and consequently, opening himself to criticism. People push likes on Facebook, to show their appreciation, and curiously enough, such thin DOF shots receive a lot of likes from the general public, though not much from photographers. Slightly OT, but worth some thought.

 

I don't think it's OT at all. Probably the core of the matter.

 

Criticism is, of corse, unavoidable but ultimately unimportant. There comes a point where the negative and positive becomes the same thing: a reaction. That is the really the only thing I am interested in, over and above the actual taking of a photo, expressing my perception.

[Paul J]

I think there is almost always some value in hearing what others think if they are interested enough to make a comment in the first place, as long as you don't assume that you need to alter what you do to appeal to other people.

 

Or assume that some photographic ideas are intrinsically better (or worse) than others. As with everything, think for yourself but be prepared to listen to others. The two things go together. Which is, i think, what you are saying really.

 

 

 

Incidentally,  this thread (not your post by the way) seems over-eager at times to assume that people like me who have expressed their dislike for the over-use of bokeh-heavy photos are trying to lay down rules, and sometimes this sets off a defensive "I'll do as I please" reaction instead of a thoughtful discussion of a fairly recent phenomenon.

 

We are coming from the same place Peter.

 

I've heard enough criticism of my own work to realise how most of it is pointless listening to, for reasons I've mentioned. But in the beginning, when you are insecure in your own work, it is difficult not to be influenced by peoples criticism. I just wish someone had made me aware of that years ago, which is why I'm saying it now. Peoples reaction to your work is their own, and relates to their life experience, and  more so, their past experience.

Edited July 26, 2015 by Paul J

[Peter H]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

We are coming from the same place Peter.

 

I've heard enough criticism of my own work to realise how most of it is pointless listening to, for reasons I've mentioned. But in the beginning, when you are insecure in your own work, it is difficult not to be influenced by peoples criticism. I just wish someone had made me aware of that years ago, which is why I'm saying it now. Peoples reaction to your work is their own, and relates to their life experience, and  more so, their past experience.

 

Yes, but photography is a form of communication. We can all declaim to the world and ignore the reactions, but often it's more rewarding to engage in a conversation.

 

I do believe photographic images form part of the vast set of human communication, and the sort of conversation I'm talking about has to do with the effect of the photo, its subject, the reason it exists and so on.

 

If it were just a question of other discussing your technique, camera club style,  I agree, it's of limited value (though it might be helpful of course), but that's just one small corner of what I'd consider proper and interesting criticism.

[Paul J]

Yes, but photography is a form of communication. We can all declaim to the world and ignore the reactions, but often it's more rewarding to engage in a conversation.

 

I do believe photographic images form part of the vast set of human communication, and the sort of conversation I'm talking about has to do with the effect of the photo, its subject, the reason it exists and so on.

 

If it were just a question of other discussing your technique, camera club style,  I agree, it's of limited value (though it might be helpful of course), but that's just one small corner of what I'd consider proper and interesting criticism.

 

 

There comes a point where the negative and positive becomes the same thing: a reaction. That is the really the only thing I am interested in, over and above the actual taking of a photo, expressing my perception.

 

I love reactions, I find them really interesting, negative or positive. I enjoy that. They are almost as interesting as taking the photo.

 

But it's one thing to provoke a response, then enjoy it. And another thing to listen to criticism like it matters.

[Herr Barnack]

But Edward, who are you taking photos for? If it means something to you, then that is enough. Who cares if it means nothing to someone else? Your good ideas, are someone else's bad ideas. Vice versa. You will never discover anything new for yourself, anything new about your self if you stop doing something because others tell you not to.

Paul, you have hit the nail on the head.  We should make the photographs that we like, not the photographs that someone else might like if we guess correctly.

 

We need to be making the photographs that we find fulfilling.  We need to forsake trying to please others.  Trying to guess what other people will like and make those kinds of photographs is an exercise in futility.  It is also a way to make photographs that are hollow, barren and unsatisfying.  What's the point of any of that?

 

If we are making photos for a paying client who has paid for specific results, we give the client what he/she has paid for.  If we are photographing for ourselves, we listen to our own inner photographic aesthetic; we follow its influence in pursuit of realizing our own photographic vision. 

Edited July 29, 2015 by Carlos Danger

[Ellie]

Yes make photos for yourself, blurred background or not. (a shot from last weekend with slow camera setting)

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

M7 Summicron-M 50/2 Ilford XP2

[edwardkaraa]

It's getting too philosophical now but nobody takes photos for himself. We all take photos to show to others and we're always upset if others don't like our photos

 

This said, it's noteworthy that the general public really loves those shallow DOF shots. If you're after likes on FB that's what you should shoot. It's discriminating fellow photographers and artists who will see through the poor visual content and disapprove

PS. Before anyone jumps in, let me specify that we're talking here about images with poor content not strong images that use shallow DOF as an artistic tool.

Edited July 29, 2015 by edwardkaraa

[IkarusJohn]

It's getting too philosophical now but nobody takes photos for himself...

 

I do

[edwardkaraa]

I do

So you never show your photos to anyone?

[MarkP]

I do too

[edwardkaraa]

John and Mark, just out of curiosity, what do you do with the photos you take, if you don't show them to anyone? Just keep them on the hard drive? No Flickr, no Facebook, no hanging on the wall? I'm confused.

[MarkP]

Taking photos for my own interest does not mean other people can''t see them.

I meant that my photography is only for my interest and pleasure.

Well I don't mean photos of family & friends,etc.  No Facebook. Had a flickr account from when I did a night photography course and I think it's just sitting there rotting with a few photos on it.

 

I print the photos I like and frame my favourites.  I love seeing my photos printed.  

If other people like my photographs that's great and if they don't I don't lose sleep (or a sale) over it.

Edited July 29, 2015 by MarkP

[Herr Barnack]

What Mark said.

 

 

I print the photos I like and frame my favourites.  I love seeing my photos printed.  

If other people like my photographs that's great and if they don't I don't lose sleep (or a sale) over it.

+1.  It's not about sales.

Edited July 29, 2015 by Carlos Danger

[MarkP]

What Mark said.

 

+1.  It's not about sales.

 

...and if for me it was about sales I'd starve to death   .

[jmahto]

Taking photos for my own interest does not mean other people can''t see them.

I meant that my photography is only for my interest and pleasure.

Well I don't mean photos of family & friends,etc.  No Facebook. Had a flickr account from when I did a night photography course and I think it's just sitting there rotting with a few photos on it.

 

I print the photos I like and frame my favourites.  I love seeing my photos printed.  

If other people like my photographs that's great and if they don't I don't lose sleep (or a sale) over it.

 

I also take pics for myself. Something what I think looks beautiful or worth capturing (as memories). I have many pictures which I haven't shown to anybody. I was thinking about how to describe it... Lets say I am watching a beautiful sunset and I take pictures. I may or may not share with friends (or sell) but it is for myself to remind me later that I was enjoying that beautiful sunset. If I share it then it will be for the purpose of sharing the joy, nothing else.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jmahto]

...and if for me it was about sales I'd starve to death   .

 

This is important. If one takes a pic for the main purpose of selling then it has to be influenced by the whims of paying folks. It doesn't matter whether I like the bokeh, composition or HDR. What matters is what they like and I am just a slave.

 

I remember reading someplace where a photographer lamented that he not really likes HDR prints (specially overdone) but that is what sales more than "usual" scenery pics therefore he does more of it. This is totally opposite of shooting for yourself.