Stream

Join this community to post or comment

Jay Gould

Discussion  - 
 
In case you have been wondering why I have been playing but not posting, we have been on the move for the last two months. I am playing to engender inspiration to get back to photography.
5
Duane Caldwell's profile photoJack Johnson's profile photo
2 comments
 
We'll take what we can get Jay. But we want pics, too. :)
Add a comment...
 
 
Just finished writing my latest blog...head over and check it out. Please feel free to share it around, comment as you like and ask me any questions you may have, I always enjoy hearing your thoughts.
#photography #blog #duncanlongden  #landscape #commercial #fujifilm
It's Cold Outside. As I mentioned in my last blog, it was snowing in the UK while I was there for a few weeks over Christmas and New Year. I love the snow, it always creates such a beautiful change in the landscape, plus ...
View original post
2
Add a comment...
 
Simple question: I recently lent my friend my much loved Fujifilm X100. He absolutely loves using it and so his gorgeous wife bought him an X100s for Christmas.
I happy to say that I am now seeing more photography posts from him as he is enjoying using the camera so much and says "it has reconnected him with photography."
My question is, when you buy new kit, do you get fresh inspiration and energy to shoot, or is it just a new piece of kit to use and continue your photography as usual?
1
Duncan Longden's profile photoOleg Perejogin's profile photo
17 comments
 
Don't forget about a nice M-mount adapter for Fuji. It will open new horizons of spending to you. Though for more frugal type, there a Contax G adapter, which gives you access to excellent, but cheap Zeiss optics.
Add a comment...
 
Do we know our "art" from our elbows? 
Interesting article.
8
1
Krish M's profile photoNev Nels's profile photoTadashi Arakawa's profile photo
4 comments
 
Why does everyone spell fauxtografee rong?
Add a comment...
 
What is proper LB etiquette if I make edits in response to comments in the Voting Pool and believe the shot is improved? ... Wait til after the voting and repost (where?) ... post to LB as a whole during (or after) voting ... etc.  I am a newbie and unsure ... Thanks
1
J P Montgomery's profile photoJay Gould's profile photo
4 comments
 
There are time when, as a result of the suggestions, I have reprocessed and posted in the voting pool and the image received the 10 saves. Depends upon the image and how much change was required.
Add a comment...
 
If this is reckoned spam, please delete!
 
Here's something random and lighthearted: photography satirist Missy Mwac put together a set of meme images showing what she thinks Disney princesses would
View original post
4
Dragomir Madzharov's profile photoElizabeth Hahn's profile photo
3 comments
 
:P
Add a comment...

Jay Gould

Discussion  - 
 
Thank you!
6
Elizabeth Hahn's profile photoJay Gould's profile photo
2 comments
 
Thanks Boss! ;-)
Add a comment...
 
 
This is an awesome twist my friend +Ralf Hildebrandt gave my Boyana church image today! I think this is super cool! Thank you , Ralf, for sharing your vision of this with me :D I hope everyone enjoys it as much as I do!
View original post
7
1
J P Montgomery's profile photoRalf Hildebrandt's profile photoHoward Zhou's profile photo
2 comments
 
+J P Montgomery Thank you.
Add a comment...

Kent Forrest

Discussion  - 
 
My recent submissions to VP were all just to see what the community would say about IQ and the results from my $300 investment in this used kit, circa 2009, that I picked up a month or so ago.

3 out of 4 images made it through to TLB. The 4th got shot down because I apparently suck as a photographer. No comments gave me any pause about the equipment. Even though I do wish for image stabilization or higher ISO capabilities, and despite many deletes for softness, a portrait shot at 1/13 ultimately survived the Sharks.

I'm super happy with this camera and I am coming to love the lens itself.


1
Oleg Perejogin's profile photoKent Forrest's profile photo
7 comments
 
^^ I should schedule an hour to sit down one day and learn the Internet.
Add a comment...
 
Taking on the discussion +Clement Biger and +Duncan Longden started on Clement's post about the troubles you may get in shooting around. This video is about how editing your photo can harm you if you are a photo journalist. It is quite different of course than the initial matter the two gentlemen were discussing but still an interesting one :)
3
Add a comment...

Krish M

Discussion  - 
1
Add a comment...

Krish M

Discussion  - 
 
There are many photos stuck at the bottom of the pool. Please vote on them.
2
Add a comment...
 
OK did someone set an abstract theme week and I missed it?
3
Dragomir Madzharov's profile photoElizabeth Hahn's profile photo
24 comments
 
?
Add a comment...
 
Hey folks,
is it just me or what happened to the pool - I can see postings of 2013 at the bottom of the pool ;-) G+ screwed up again?
2
Michael Seneschal's profile photoElizabeth Hahn's profile photo
15 comments
 
Lol. Yeah
Add a comment...

Oleg Perejogin
moderator

Discussion  - 
4
Elizabeth Hahn's profile photo
 
I want MOAR!!

(although I do agree with many of the points)
Add a comment...

Jay Gould

Discussion  - 
Earlier this month, NASA and ESA released the biggest and highest resolution image of our galactic neighbor, Andromeda, that has ever been taken. The 1.5 billion pixel image was taken by the Hubble Space Telescope. Each tiny dot of light in the picture represents one of 1 trillion stars in the galaxy; many with their own expansive planetary systems. 
5
1
Jay Gould's profile photomüşteba karamanoğlu's profile photo
7 comments
 
ALLES GUTE HAPPY BRTHDAY 
DOĞUM GÜNÜNÜZ KUTLU OLSUN.
 ·  Translate
Add a comment...

Jack Johnson

Discussion  - 
 
+Brady Simmons Come back! :)
8
Elizabeth Hahn's profile photoHannes Lilliefeldt's profile photo
3 comments
 
Yes, please come back
Add a comment...

Oleg Perejogin
moderator

Discussion  - 
 
He's right. When it comes to fine art, the print is the end result, not stuff you see on the screen.
 
The Stages of (Being) a Photographer
in all seriousness…
(a bloggy kind of post… if you want to read a mini book ;))

disclaimer: this text is written from a fine art perspective; my views hereby expressed apply exclusively within this mindset.

A few months ago, I shared this graph as a humorous take on the lifecycle of “being a photographer”. Since then I’ve looked at it a couple more times, and I started to wonder if it would pass muster as a serious (rather than humour) take. Now, I think it does. So I am addressing it again, this time “in all seriousness” (my goofy side will likely return on the next post ;)).

I searched for the origin of this graph so that proper credit could be attributed, and also to see if it was originally a serious or otherwise fun take on the subject. I keep losing track on a reference to a blog entry that doesn’t exist anymore, by a photographer called Robert Benson. I estimate this to be the origin of it, and a photography forum called /p/ to be the intended showcase (hence the /p/ mention in the graph). But I’m not 100% sure of this provenance.

Seemingly all entries of this graph on the internet assume it to be satirical. I think that misses out on very important points. The graph is far from a blueprint on said lifecycle, because it makes assumptions regarding i.e. the start of the journey that often won’t apply (they don’t apply to me, for instance). Still, the overall picture tells a thousand words — the 1000 words I’m using here, maybe?

So, then, here’s my serious look at this. Remember that my ensuing comments have a serious nature, therefore I won’t make cracks where it would be easy to do so. Remember as well that these are my views and opinions… they’re not supposed to be “the Truth” about anything. And the mindset here is fine art, so I won’t bother with ‘all other uses’ for photography; which are plentiful and all quite valid. But if this article makes you think about photography — even if only to disagree with me — then that fits my purpose with writing it.

Knowledge
I certainly did not start photographing with a 7GP phone camera. I started photographing with a Nikon film camera, back in the 80s (a Nikkormat, to be specific). The “seven gigapixels” reference is a key hint that this was originally a humorous take on the subject, say I.

But I do agree that getting out of auto mode and learning about exposure will ramp one’s knowledge of photography immensely from the 0 start mark. In turn, that’ll easily fall into gearfaggotry, and that “must have” of the new gadget, the new gear, the new software, the new this, the new that. The industry makes sure it feeds the desire for this, as do all those ‘in the payroll’ of the sector companies (and often very far apart from anything even remotely connected with fine art themselves). This often happens at the expense of quality and knowledge indeed, because in order to learn to use those new gadgets, we are spending valuable time that we could be using to improve our relevant photography knowledge. So yes, the knowledge progression does decrease until we grow out of that, aptly named, gearfaggotry, and we concentrate on what really matters… again.

I have never seen a photograph by Ansel Adams, or Richard Avedon or Jay Maisel for that matter, where the gear used to make it stands out by itself. Not even the work of say Joe McNally, some of which may have a style where gear is involved (i.e. one single off-camera light source), but which brand and model of gear is besides the point. Throw these guys any camera, and they’ll likely create master works anyway.

Yet these days, it’s fantastic how many people out there — even some pros, and some fine art pros — are making their artwork stand out as “a product of camera X”, that they “master”, that “only the pros have”, that is “the best camera for this kind of photo” and the use of which they “spent a lifetime perfecting”. Marketing ruses, most of them (and bad ruses at that); gearfaggotry of the highest order the remaining ones.

Gearfaggotry is fuelled by the industry for ‘the discrete majority’ of photography fans out there who, quite frankly, have no inkling in going into the creation of fine artwork. Cute pictures of flowers and cats suffice. The ‘problem’ is when the rest of us get easily mired in that argumentation.

Once we move on from gearfaggotry, we are then free to spend our precious time actually learning about photographic art. And technique, composition and practice are key factors of that. I don’t think that film cameras are a must here (but they certainly help), and I think there are key aspects not mentioned. The quality of the light is one of them, and the foremost absent mention from the graph is the knowledge of how we see (i.e. how the human visual system works), as well as its difference to the way a camera (sensor/film) sees light. All these are key for our understanding of photography.

We surely can keep improving our knowledge via these aspects, in the safe knowledge that we’ll never reach 100% before we kick the bucket. No one ever has, but we can keep trying to, and that’s a huge part of the fun of photographing.

Quality
I don’t want to veer off-topic on this one. There are mountains of books written on this subject alone, and many of them make the exact same mistake that many individuals out there make — not least because those people are reading those books, and some of them are writing ‘em. Remember that I’m still talking about fine art here, not “photography at large.”

Something does not have quality simply because it sells. In photography as in art at large as in anything else. The vast majority of people cannot fathom the difference between the two, but there’s a huge difference here. Products and services sell because there is a market for that product or service, and in this regards they are legitimate products and services. They have the relevance of addressing the needs of that segment of the population. But if a segment of the population desires garbage, and I create a product which is garbage, it’ll sell wonderfully to that segment and perhaps even make me millions in the process. It won’t magically be a quality product just because of that; it’s still garbage, and its success is merely a product of an adequate selling proposition — often artificially created for that matter.

So after this long intro, how does the graph fare on quality?

The quality of our photos increases with our understanding of key photography aspects, such as exposure. Once we get to the “I must have that X” (X=camera/lens/tripod/etc), and we start dispersing our knowledge trying every gadget out there, quality does suffer; often a lot. We are back on the low end of the learning curve for that particular gear or tool.

The HDR hole, which is the first element of the graph that made it humorous to me back in the day, represents this very well. It is often the most common culprit of this massive quality drop, especially for those “7GP phone camera” pedlars who see HDR as something that ‘must’ be played with because it looks ‘cool’. Incidently, calling someone a photographer just because s/he has a phone with a camera is akin to calling yourself a writer just because you write emails. And considering one of those people a Fine Art Photographer is the same as considering yourself a Literature Nobel Prize winner, on the same analogy. There are far fewer fine art photographers out there than the count of those that claim to be one.

I think I won’t break anyone’s heart by stating that the vast majority of “HDR” we see out there is… oh boy, how do I put it… ghastly! HDR used as a “style,” as a “voice,” as a “personal view” of the world, often leads to results that are nowhere near fine art. They can be pop art, for sure; but fine art has tenets that those images simply don’t comply with. It is entirely legitimate work! But it is monumentally tiresome to look at that, and it is most often misused by incorrectly handling the software that creates it — which, by the way, often places a digital signature on the end image; which should be that of the artist instead, not of a piece of software. It serves the needs of a large segment of the population because the vast majority of people can enjoy pop art; but it does not by itself cater for the visual culture of those that consume fine art.

“HDR” can be a wonderful tool and technique for fine art photography, because (1) cameras see light different than we do, and (2) the state of the art in sensor making is still not close to our human visual system. Some cameras have an advantage on dynamic range (and in the future they may come very close to our vision), but the vast majority of prosumer cameras are still far away from that. “HDR” comes in handy in those cases, as well as other elements such as filters. Used as a tool, “HDR” can bring the captured image closer to our eye vision, and in that regard be used at the service of the artistic vision.

As an aside here,…
…noticed that I am using “HDR” in quotes all this time? That’s because HDR (the popular reference) is not HDR (a high dynamic range image). There could be a whole book on this subject (there likely is), but the fact of the matter is that the dynamic range (DR) of a photograph does not change when we use “HDR” software on it. It is still the same, because it is limited by the DR of the monitor we are seeing it in, or the paper or other medium we are seeing a print of it in. What we have is a perceived DR increase by using the technique appropriately, but the actual DR limits of the photograph are the same. Want to increase the DR of your photographs? Use print media with higher DR capabilities. Easier said than done, but possible nevertheless.

Once we understand that the issue is perception, then once again the knowledge of “how we see” kicks in as fundamental. Which is why it is lacking in the graph, as I said.

This fall into a quality hole around gearfaggotry time is as valid for “HDR” as for many other things (editing software is one of the foremost, as mentioned ahead and seen on the graph). At the end of the day, once we get out of this hole a wonderful, magical thing happens: we resume improvement of our photographic quality, and the ramp is now set higher than it was before we got in the hole (see that in the graph?). In short, we benefit from the learning we get by falling into that hole! Which is why we must welcome the fact that we are — or have been — in there in the first place.

Self-Appreciation
This is the hardest of the topics to comment on, because it depends a lot on individual personality. The graph is made for the ‘common online digital photography’ use, in this topic, rather than for fine art. Still, there are important nuggets here for the serious photographer.

Starting high is common because we just found something new, that we are passionate about, and where we want to excel. We are on top of the world. Quickly dropping to a serious low is also common: when we start understanding what we’re actually doing, we see how terrible our initial attempts at it were.

Then comes the dreaded phase, and this is where I think the graph is spot on: the hole! Matching with gearfaggotry and the other two great culprits: social media and editing software. Let’s look at these two separately.

(1) Social media: it may come as a surprise to you (seen as you are reading this in social media), but this is not a medium for fine art photography. For starters, there is no such thing as a fine art digital image (a fine art photograph is necessarily a print. Period). This would be a subject for another (large) book, and I’m not going to discuss it here now. But. A. Fine. Art. Photograph. Is. A. Print. Not any print, of course, but a print nonetheless.

What we have on social media is a mix of audience segments (read: individual motivations), which range from those that will +1/like every single image out there, to the myriad of niche segments for every type of “image look and style”. It is quite probable that whatever (what ever) we post will find an eager audience out there, and be “liked” by some. Which will give us the illusion (nay, the delusion) that we are great photographers and produce great art. We may or may not do that, but social media appreciation is surely not a measure of it. Nor is lack of social media acceptance of our posts a measure of lack of fine art photography on our side.

I’ve written a report a year ago about the G+ dynamics that matches this perfectly, imo: whatever we post has a potential appreciation (+1, re-shares) that is bound by certain expectable levels. Recently I found out a slight break of this rule — which I will not dive into in here — but in general I largely see this as remaining the same.

The vast majority of the photographic content on G+ is mediocre. And browsing on Saturdays is sure to give one a headache, with the dreadful caturday in full force.

(2) Editing: this one goes hand in hand with the previous one. We edit to our heart’s content — and sometimes to our madness content — and show it on social media… high chances are it’ll be liked by some tribe! That doesn’t make it a work of fine art, but we invariably think it does, and we feel there’s no limit to our ascension. The graph depicts it pretty well.

Then comes the fall. For some it may be in a forum such as /p/ (I have browsed it and found it largely irrelevant; the author of the graph obviously didn’t agree). For others it may be some other kind of ‘peer recognition.’ For me it is the fine art print. “The print” is the element most missing in this graph, from a fine art perspective. As I said above, a fine art photograph is a print. I’ll assume it is included in the techniques chapter in here.

Last year I created some high quality prints (not fine art ones, but still photographically premium), and put them in front of ‘the crowd’ out there. The appreciation was great, and I didn’t think that I sucked in any way. This year I am creating certified fine art prints, and I’m putting them in front of qualified people for that assessment. I’m very scared of what the reaction will be, as much as I am eagerly anticipating it. It’s a wonderful experience and I still don’t think I suck. But boy has the game changed now! The huge step up has the potential for the huge drop, and I’ll be here at the end of this year to report the results (hopefully not the damage!).

The learning experience is fundamental for my progression as a fine art photographer, and I believe it to be the same for anyone else that seriously follows that path too. Whether that’ll cap my self-appreciation the way the graph depicts, I don’t know. I hope it doesn’t, because I don’t like that aspect of fine art photography. It’s all good to be humble, but not acknowledging one’s self-worth is a huge mistake that does more harm than good.

In Closing
Overall, I’d say that I do not see this lifecycle as an ‘established’ progress path for a photographer. Many people get stuck in a phase and don’t… progress?… advance?… move on?… grow? (delete as applicable). But for those of us that have photography as a passion, and want to be serious about it — whether professionally or as an amateur, it’s the same — then this lifecycle makes a lot of sense. And being conscious about it is paramount to navigate it with minimal frustration, and to quickly shed elements that hamper progression — such as gearfaggotry, reliance on editing and faux ’techniques’ such as “HDR” (as a style).

Now that I’m firmly set on(real) fine art photography creation — and have read and am reading heaps of stuff in that regard — these points make all the sense to me. If you have a mind about fine art photography, as an artist or as a collector of it… what say you? (everyone else need not respond)

===== The HS Project =====

#fineart   #finearts   #fineartphotography   #fineartphotographer   #artisticphotography   #hdrwoes   #fineartphotos   #fineartphotograph  
38 comments on original post
7
4
Subhasis Ray's profile photojan buraot's profile photoBruno Contessi's profile photoChristine Nin's profile photo
 
That's an excellent article. Thanks for sharing! 
Add a comment...
 
#delete1  I like it. I just can't come up with a reason to save it.

Nev Nels


^^ This, in my not always so humble opinion, is what the Voting Pool should be about, folks.  Reaching TLB should not mean the absence of distracting mistakes, but rather the presence of something special.

When visitors flip through TLB they should see the best work this community is capable of.  When the bar is properly set there, we are all pushed to do better.

There is always the G+ Photography community for free back rubs when we're down.  :-)
12
Duane Caldwell's profile photoDragomir Madzharov's profile photo
6 comments
 
LOL !
Add a comment...