giordano Posted January 7, 2009 Share #41 Posted January 7, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I agree, but the moment you criticise something you'll likely to be labelled a miserable sod. To be honest I tend not to comment on photographs I don't like. Same here. Maybe we need a Grumpy Old Men photo forum where people can post pix that they want to be criticised. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 Hi giordano, Take a look here Fighting for High Aesthetics in Digital Photography. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
buckhorn_cortez Posted January 7, 2009 Share #42 Posted January 7, 2009 I agree, but the moment you criticise something you'll likely to be labelled a miserable sod. To be honest I tend not to comment on photographs I don't like. Good criticism and the Internet are oxymorons and seemingly mutually exclusive. Real criticism requires a dialog between the person creating the work and the person providing the critique. What you have on photo websites is drive-thru commentary based soley upon personal likes and dislikes. Again, in 99% of the cases, the comment is based on how successful the photograph is in meeting safe, readily recognizable aesthetics that are mostly related to replicating a pre-defined definition of what constitutes a "good" photograph. The aesthetic is most probably based upon the concepts of "beauty" and being "sublime" - for what either are worth. If it's a decorative wall furniture image that's a copy of what has been pre-defined as "good" - you get the "nice capture," "good compo" (my favorite), "stunning," et al.........never mind that it's a piece of dreck that looks like 10,000 other photographs of exactly the same subject. In a true critical interchange, the person providing the comment would ask questions of the photographer related to images that they do not understand in order to see if there was a basis for the how the image was composed - have you ever seen that happen? It never will because that approach takes both thinking, time, and effort; and not wall decoration level aesthetics appreciation - not to mention the interest in actually learning more about an aesthetic that is currently not understood. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted January 7, 2009 Share #43 Posted January 7, 2009 Real criticism requires a dialog between the person creating the work and the person providing the critique. Does it though? Books of criticism have been written by the skip load without any involvement of the original artist - whether that's a novelist, poet, artist or photographer. There's an implied problem with critiques of dead people's work too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckhorn_cortez Posted January 7, 2009 Share #44 Posted January 7, 2009 Does it though? Books of criticism have been written by the skip load without any involvement of the original artist - whether that's a novelist, poet, artist or photographer. There's an implied problem with critiques of dead people's work too. Except, books of criticism are totally different than on-line criticism, and the simplistic, drive-thru, one-liners. A book implies the author is providing a studied, in-depth examination of the artist or aesthetic being discussed and how the work relates to current and/or previous art. On-line criticism found on photo websites is framed within a context of providing "help" to the photographer in creating better photographs. So, I don't see the point you're trying to make. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wstotler Posted January 8, 2009 Share #45 Posted January 8, 2009 On-line criticism found on photo websites is framed within a context of providing "help" to the photographer in creating better photographs. Something to think about? I would say that much of the on-line "criticism" about photos I see on Flickr (for example) are people taking a moment to say: "Hey, I liked that." But instead of just saying "Hey, I liked that" I think people try to frame up what they think about the photo and fall back on a limited semi-technical response like "Good composition." It's really in many cases the equivalent of "Hey, I liked that" and I take comments like that as such. It's not serious. It's more about social outreach, interaction, and friendly support. (On Flickr, anyway.) I know I only personally "fave" or write comments (including "good composition"--and I do know good from bad in this case) when I see something that I know was technically hard to get or was the capture of a really good moment or mood. Other people are more subject-focused. E.g., the subject of the photograph ("Awesome shot!" as applied to a nasty snapped photo of somebody wiping out when snowboarding, for example) is more important to them than the quality or art exercised by the photographer when deliberately making the photograph. I agree that *useful* criticism often involves a more detailed exchange of ideas and that is rare online. But I can say that the idea of getting stuck in a classroom under an instructor that doesn't respect the aesthetic or feel I want to pull into my photos is a horrifying thought. I also agree that the more "standard" the photo is on a sharing site--recognized as "technically good" (e.g., approaching commercial look and feel)--the more likely it is to be appreciated if it is of a reasonably interesting subject. I also think that photography is richer than ever before--with a caveat. It's not the cameras, per se. It's the more ready availability of cameras to more people that nets (if even accidentally) more good photos. I think the ratio of "good photos" (if we can even agree what that means) to "bad photos" (ditto) has shifted. Because the technology doesn't require a basic commitment to craft to even *get* a photo out of it, no commitment to even semi-formal learning of anything about "the basics" (framing, color, light, etc.) is required to snap the shot. (I wish I had a nickel for every time I heard a friend or family member say when looking at one of their red-eye, flash, blurry, "unhappy result" photos: "I should take a class." They never do. They just stay frustrated with the quality of their photos and blame the flash! For f&*k sake, people, if you're unhappy with your photos go buy just one entry level book on photography and spend an hour reading it. Take one page of notes. Apply the principles until you're improving. Gack. Rant off.) But I think it's a net gain in the availability and number of good/excellent photographs, overall. Thanks, Will Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhabedi Posted January 8, 2009 Share #46 Posted January 8, 2009 Except, books of criticism are totally different than on-line criticism, and the simplistic, drive-thru, one-liners. A book implies the author is providing a studied, in-depth examination of the artist or aesthetic being discussed and how the work relates to current and/or previous art. On-line criticism found on photo websites is framed within a context of providing "help" to the photographer in creating better photographs. So, I don't see the point you're trying to make. In case some of you haven't seen these before: The Online Photographer: Great Photographers on the Internet Mario's Bike on Flickr - Photo Sharing! The second one is real... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicar7 Posted January 8, 2009 Author Share #47 Posted January 8, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) For those who have any interest in information on analytical aspects of images, the following books are the top of the heap that I've managed to find over some four years: 1. Freeman's "The Photographer's Eye." "Image," from the 1980s is still worth a read. 2. Mante's "The Photograph." Also his two books from the 1970s. 3. Hoffmann's "The Art of B & W Photography" The above are a thorough, but not exhaustive look at the composition/design problem up to the intermediate level and are the only ones currently in print in English. 4. Charles Bouleau's "The Painter's Secret Geometry." The art history book we all should have had and didn't; Janson doesn't cover any of this material. 5. Alexander Lapin's "Photography as ... " In Cyrillic and difficult to impossible to find. Next best is his web site at LapinBook - Óðîê ÷åòâåðòûé Enter this address into the website translation space on Babelfish-Altavista. If you can tolerate the often rocky translation, you'll get an idea of what I find intriguing about his information. If anyone has a clue about how we can get his material into English, I'd be keen to hear from you. I've been plodding away at translating his book, and there is tons of stuff nowhere that I have seen an any other book or resource. 6. Bill Smith's "Designing a Photograph," 1st ed. The best introductory presentation of Gestalt visualization as it pertains to photography. 7. Zakia's "Perception and Photography" and the current 3rd ed. of this, "Perception and Imaging." Best dictionary and explanation of perceptual phenomena. 8. Maitland Graves's "The Art of Color and Design." Also, his "Graves Design Judgement Test." 9. Harve Wobbe's "A New Approach to Pictorial Composition" 10. Meier or the Meier-Seashore "Art Judgement Test" There are several other books, but these are easily my top ten suggestions. Most are out of print and some are costly and rare. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan States Posted January 10, 2009 Share #48 Posted January 10, 2009 My opinion is that there is still just as much great photography around, but the internet has allowed easy access to the crap. This can distort the reality and make it seem as if things have got worse. I was just thinking the very same thing! There will always be folks who aspire to greatness regardless of the medium. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.