"Real" photographers are dumb

[civo]

I would like to ask all of you ”real” photographers how do you define a good picture? Apparantly there is  a big appreciation towards posh advertisement aesthethic without the capability to see beyond ones own ego-boost. For me most of the pictures presented on this website are way more interesting than the ever-so-slick-photos with traditional compositions or a Rembrandt lighting. Been there, done that. That’s easy. Maybe it could be interesting and fruitful for all of yous to try to break out of the old norms and try to improve the aesthetic and content of photography further, like many of these faboulous artworks that you are arrogantly mocking. ”Real” photographers are dumb.

[fstopper89]

You call absolutely shitty photography “interesting” and “artwork?”

LOL.

All good photographers who really have a passion for photography DO strive to be more creative than just “average” shots. If you’re talking average, boring, super-posed photography, you are probably referring to Walmart photo studios. Oh wait, they’re closing… clients want more than their kid sitting uncreatively in a studio with a rubber ducky. Some people try to make a quick buck with their little $150 digital camera; others like most of us here find pure joy in creating art with our real cameras.

[cameraclicker]

Civo, please tell us what you think is good about both of these:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=552636101425448&set=pb.549250508430674.-2207520000.1365389928&type=3&theater

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=498185286883406&set=pb.288411511194119.-2207520000.1365392955&type=3&permPage=1

 

Please elucidate.

 

[Open Focus]

How do you compare a product when one is cheaply made and the other is of fine quality?  You simply cannot cheat at photography And the photographs here are on display because they are the types who do not feel the need to educate themselves on lighting, they don’t need to know exposure, metering or aperture. They think that it’s perfectly acceptable to shoot in Auto mode, jpeg.

[Loke]

Civo…I get what you’re saying and some so-called ” Pro” photographers come off as pretentious….lol….but you have to admit, a person should at least know how to properly compose a picture, knowledge of exposure and such before they “break” the rules.  Given that, I find technically PERFECT photos absolutely boring…unless the photographer is someone like Peter Lik.

[Moga]

Obvious troll is obvious.

But, just for fun, I think I have some troll food in my bag here…

The thing about photography, as with any type of art, is that it has it’s own inherent language. Every aspect of a photograph carries with it a message that will influence the viewer’s perception of the image – subject matter, lighting, color, composition, aspect ratio, etc. Much of this language is inherent to the human psyche and cross-cultural, such as darkness symbolizing fear or ignorance or evil, and light symbolizing knowledge or life or goodness. Sometimes the symbols are culture specific, like religious iconography or certain colors. Also, the language can change it’s meaning over time.

The problem with most fauxtogs is that they don’t know or care about this language. They don’t realize that they are unintentionally mocking their subjects by putting them into an unflattering pose or highlighting their flaws. They use post processing effects without understanding how it changes the perception of the subject. They are the artistic equivalent of walking around Italy reading from the Olive Garden menu and thinking that means they can speak Italian.

Professional photographers know this language. They will craft the image to express the message they want. They understand that not everyone will read the image the same way, and will act accordingly. This, on top of all of the technical knowledge they need to learn, is what makes them a pro. It’s true, most of them will reach a comfort zone and generally create the same thing over and over again. However, sometimes someone will try something different, and if they understand this language, if they aren’t just fumbling in the dark, they will create something new and amazing.

So, to answer your question, a good picture speaks to you. And it is not misheard.

[civo]

 

To ”cameraclicker”

I am talking about the site in general. Surely you can point out bad examples also that  even I don’t find interesting. Even though when presented in a right context, I think the baby photo is kinda cool in a surreal way. I mean, I could never even think of working in this way. I find it very interesting.

 

[civo]

 

To “browneyedgirl89”

Nice to hear that I have made you laugh out loud. Laughing is a good thing. But to be serious for a second, for me a lot of the photographs presented on this website are not just badly executed studio photographs. Maybe it has been a driving force to start this kind of appreciation site for ”pro” photographers but it has turned into mocking also all other kinds of photos than just amateurish studio photos. Maybe you personally find all the images you don’t like ”average” and ”boring”. For me it seems that the discussion here really is really focused in the technical aspects of photographs which I find somewhat boring and not beneficial for the development of the language in visual arts. Not to underestimate the experience, effort and ”passion” that all of  yous put in your images. Which I haven’t seen by the way. I only know what you don’t like.

To me ”art” is not about technical quality, as it hasn’t been for western contemporary art for over a century (with the exception of Russia). And I don’t consider wedding photography (not to mention advertisement photography) as ”art” (whatever that means).

And what is this talk about ”real” cameras? Please tell me that you are not serious… How do you like your profile image? I don’t consider it ”art”, ”interesting” or even technically well made. Is it irony then? Or what? Please elaborate yourself.

[civo]

To ”Open Focus”

For me the essence of a work is not about it’s technical quality or expensive production. As for painting, I don’t care at all about photorealism, unless it’s somehow relevant to the content. Same with photography. Of course I admire people for technical skills but that’s more of a crafts thing than art. And I do I think it’s perfectly acceptable to shoot in Auto mode, jpeg.

[civo]

”To Loke”

Finally some sense to the discussion. I agree with you on the most parts. Maybe we can pick up the discussion from here.

[civo]

 

To ”Moga”

No, not a troll. Just someone who gets annoyed by – as ”Loke” described – pretentious ”pro” photographers ( and I’m not referring to you). I find it way more interesting to discuss these matters with your kind of photographers  who can actually justify the usage of such language, rather than just mocking people for shooting ”auto”, ”jpeg” or ”chaep equipment”, which  I just find really arrogant and that they have to prove themselves better in the internet. Actions speak louder than words.

 

[civo]

“browneyedgirl89”

Ok. I checked your Flickr account. And now I’m even more confused. The kind of photography you do is REALLY BASIC wedding photography stuff and portraits. Also the discussion about “9-point AF system” etc., very interesting (megapixels are cool, aye?). And here you are claiming to be a “pro” by mocking other people. Sorry to say, but get real girl!

“Another one shot by Cole. I made a funny face on purpose. It’s not really in focus, but who cares.” – apparently you do

[fstopper89]

HAHAHA civo… I hand one of my DSLR cameras to a 6 year old boy. Do you really expect it to be in focus? We have mocked supposed professionals here on this site for producing work that is just as out-of-focus as something a kindergartener might produce.

Not claiming to be a pro by mocking others. Pro because I can produce quality end products and do make income from it. Some of it might be what you consider “basic” (lol, remember here, you don’t seem to know much about art or photography apparently) but I have lots of more creative works as well, and that is what I strive to do like every photographer who actually cares about their craft/profession. I don’t call a photograph average or boring simply because I do not like it. I’ve been an artist my whole life and have had education in art as well, so I use knowledge of art to judge something as a piece of art.

And if we’re talking about my profile image, it’s from my phone, with a cartoon app… silly. Clearly that is not any sort of professional image. Sadly, some people do try to sell stuff like that as professional work, and that is what people here mock. From what you say you are probably a discouraged fauxtographer who decided to whine.  May we see your photography?

 

[civo]

I don’t expect anything. You obviously didn’t read my posts clearly. Maybe sleep over it and try to make some sense. Artist? All your life? You mean as a profession or lifestyle or in a Beuysian way that “everyone is an artist”? Or just you?

Myself, I don’t consider most forms of photography as “art” – more of crafts. But I do like them anyway.

Also you seem to have very strong preconceptions. 

[fstopper89]

Artist as a lifestyle, as a profession (as in photography) a few years/more than a few if you count school leading up to it and such. Not everyone is an artist, some people just aren’t “born” with the aspiration to create art. Some people have more creative minds and some have more analytical minds.

Crafts are usually something that can be easily reproduced (almost mass-produced) by using a pattern of some sort. I do some crocheting which is a craft. Most photography I would consider art, though I do kind of see shoot-and-burn photographers to be creating more of a craft when they just take all their clients to the same location and give them 20 minutes of un-creative photography and give them all a disk for a cheap price.

[Author]

Posts