Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

I can't stand them anymore
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Art Talk
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 3:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gentlemen, I really like this discussion. It's rather eloquent and sophisticated. Thanks for the nice read and the interesting thoughts.

BTW, I have came across such an artist recently (well, some time ago):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/9196600@N04/

His first shots were really nice. They show places I have also been to (USA, Scotland), but then he uplaoded some weird stuff...

Last edited by LucisPictor on Tue Dec 08, 2009 3:23 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 3:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nesster wrote:

All that said, the instant 'art' nostalgia cool factor is suspect. Much of it is fashion - and a nostalgic return to the limitations of medium we used to curse and work hard to avoid. Kind of like the addition of record scratches to digital music.


It's just the exteriority that matters. Superficiality.
What point there is in adding digital scratches to images to make them look aged? A commercial one when you do it to make an ad for a product that requires it. OK. But what about independent artists. Where's the point?
Just the fascination of the exteriority of old print and negatives. Aesthetism. Just like Hellenistic sculptors which made statues in a style that belonged to an era that was already dead.
Just like fake period furniture.
I can understand doing that for business, but doing for one's own art is, well, meaningless.

Nesster wrote:
These are interesting questions to me, for why do I enjoy shooting with antiquated equipment - stuff I would not have touched nor considered 30 years ago?


I can only speak for myself:
I enjoy old equipment because it talks me of an age when even the industrial production was caring about certain things like the quality of build, the good taste, and products that were created to last.

Then maye there is people who uses old equipment hoping to make photos that look old.
I don't know if this is the case - if it is, I'd say it's pretty naive. Today we use different film, different chemicals, and the world in front of us is different. And, you just can't fake the passing of time. It's an enterprise bound to fail from the start.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 3:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Then maye there is people who uses old equipment hoping to make photos that look old.
I don't know if this is the case - if it is, I'd say it's pretty naive. Today we use different film, different chemicals, and the world in front of us is different. And, you just can't fake the passing of time. It's an enterprise bound to fail from the start.


That's a very good point Orio. I find it much more fascinating what old equipment can deliver with modern film and chemicals.

As for the scratches, years ago we tried to avoid scratches and noise in audio and photography, today it is hip / mainstream to add them, strange world... Laughing


PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 3:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Here is something I enjoy doing. I don't call it photography, but rather photographically based art work. Pointless, perhaps, yet I enjoy making it, and my feelings are not hurt if anyone feels otherwise Wink



I call it antique fakery, though my intent isn't to fake antiques. The process does involve a bit of skill, though I readily admit that often the basic image won't make it on its own Smile

I have an entire set of this stuff:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nesster/sets/72157600298391542/
Shocked


PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 4:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I find that all that "texture" hype, that is so successful on Flickr or Deviantart, very very amateurish.

Beside the fact that it prints awfully (it looks so incredibly cheap that few magazines used that effect on their images), so it is nice looking just on PC screens at very very low resolution.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 4:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nesster wrote:
...........
However: evidence is that several well known and influential, traditional photographers in fact took hundreds if not thousands of photographs, with more or less attention to the technical details, and then spent months boiling them down to the handful or so deemed worthy.

The inventor of the Decisive Moment was like this, as was Robert Frank, just to pick a couple..

.........These are interesting questions to me, for why do I enjoy shooting with antiquated equipment - stuff I would not have touched nor considered 30 years ago?........


'Photography is not like painting,' Cartier-Bresson told the Washington Post in 1957. 'There is a creative fraction of a second when you are taking a picture. Your eye must see a composition or an expression that life itself offers you, and you must know with intuition when to click the camera. That is the moment the photographer is creative'

has the game changed? what happened to that creativity if the 'decisive moment' had been captured with an AF camera shooting 5 frames a second?

maybe using old, 'primitive' equipment is the desire to regain some of the human factor, and creativeness? If I was to compete or e.g wanted to sell my photos it would be the result what counts and not how the photo was produced. But doing photography for a hobby and for joy the actual action of taking the photo is most important, and if the result came out good 'in spite' of limitations the greater the satisfaction

Last edited by kuuan on Tue Dec 08, 2009 4:51 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 4:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ah, the old hairsplitting debate whether someting is art or isn't... Smile

I'm sure they had the same debate in the 1850's when photography became more common. Imagine the heated discussion between photographers and painters at that time, discussing whether photographers were artists or not.

Personally I could not care less. Because it's just a generation clash. In this day and age, internet plays an important part in the lives of youngsters. If they need an unique way of self-expression in the form of unsharp, strange pictures, then so be it. I'm sure those young people also laugh about our "outdated" styles and ideas.

In the end, there's no right or wrong. It's just as it is. Eventually, this "rage" will be over and another one will take its place. It is really this simple.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 5:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kuuan wrote:

'Photography is not like painting,' Cartier-Bresson told the Washington Post in 1957. 'There is a creative fraction of a second when you are taking a picture. Your eye must see a composition or an expression that life itself offers you, and you must know with intuition when to click the camera. That is the moment the photographer is creative'

has the game changed? what happened to that creativity if the 'decisive moment' had been captured with an AF camera shooting 5 frames a second?



Laughing Wink Only fly in Henri's ointment is that recently his negatives came to light... and turns out his Decicive Moment often was when he was looking at contact sheets... and even then, many times his Decision would change, almost as though he had an Indecisive Moment Smile That is, he sometimes could not make up his mind which frame to pick, and picked alternative ones over time.

Also, the negatives show that while Henri may not have achieved 5FPS, he shot a lot, both what I'd call statically, trying to get a certain scene, or sequentially, just shooting and shooting to get that one Decisive Shot.

In fact, I'm reasonably sure that Henri today would be using that 5FPS camera. He might still attempt to market his selection as the Decisive Moment, as that's where his bread was buttered Smile

---

But there's that excellent point between the amateur and the pro. Stieglitz was independently wealthy and thus adamantly an amateur. According to him, a pro was immediately compromised by the needs of the client.

We might muse how many are compromised by the needs of the internet, how the number of views = number of sales, psychologically speaking, and thus the flickr whores are... Laughing Laughing professionals. (I like that, whore - pro)


PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 5:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nesster wrote:

But there's that excellent point between the amateur and the pro. Stieglitz was independently wealthy and thus adamantly an amateur. According to him, a pro was immediately compromised by the needs of the client.

We might muse how many are compromised by the needs of the internet, how the number of views = number of sales, psychologically speaking, and thus the flickr whores are... Laughing Laughing professionals. (I like that, whore - pro)


Not really need to take out cheap philosophical and historical reasoning to justify what you like to do, you like it, fine for me Wink.

Still when you'll take those beautifully textured shots in 5x5 cm at 96 dpi to try to print them at 50x50 cm at 300 dpi and all you'll have will be just muddy pixels you will understand that philosophy and history have very little part in the equation.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 7:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
OOps, sorry, didn't mean to disparage the working professional photographer.

The flickr whore's 'client' requires those small images to display on screen only, and the 'currency' is attention. Anything beyond is superfluous. If it features a possibly nubile female, the image is that much more 'valuable' Wink

The working professional's requirements are of course far more rigorous around the quality of the image and its potential uses.

When one's an amateur one can suit themselves - and of course any audience who they want to reach. Which is why I don't call what I posted above photography nor do I post it on sites such as this.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 08, 2009 10:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
At first, photography is just a pleasure for me. But in "real live" I'm often in contact with "artists". My experience is that 98 % out of them are just a kind of "dedicated follower of fashion". Always the same pic's, unbelievable that each one believes that he's unique.
At second, if I have to work hard in Photoshop to enhance my photo there must be something wrong. Either change the lens (5%) or change the photographer .
Andreas


PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nesster wrote:

Laughing Wink Only fly in Henri's ointment is that recently his negatives came to light... and turns out his Decicive Moment often was when he was looking at contact sheets... and even then, many times his Decision would change, almost as though he had an Indecisive Moment Smile That is, he sometimes could not make up his mind which frame to pick, and picked alternative ones over time.

Also, the negatives show that while Henri may not have achieved 5FPS, he shot a lot, both what I'd call statically, trying to get a certain scene, or sequentially, just shooting and shooting to get that one Decisive Shot.

In fact, I'm reasonably sure that Henri today would be using that 5FPS camera. He might still attempt to market his selection as the Decisive Moment, as that's where his bread was buttered Smile


Laughing I believe every word you say
taking many and more photos and selecting must have been the best bet to get a good photo, specially with street photography, also before digital age. Time I tried out continuous shooting mode? Rolling Eyes

---
Nesster wrote:

But there's that excellent point between the amateur and the pro. Stieglitz was independently wealthy and thus adamantly an amateur. According to him, a pro was immediately compromised by the needs of the client.

We might muse how many are compromised by the needs of the internet, how the number of views = number of sales, psychologically speaking, and thus the flickr whores are... Laughing Laughing professionals. (I like that, whore - pro)
............
The flickr whore's 'client' requires those small images to display on screen only, and the 'currency' is attention. Anything beyond is superfluous. If it features a possibly nubile female, the image is that much more 'valuable' Wink..............


whores and pros are working for money,
the payment on flickr is not in cash but by attention, view counts, maybe recognition?

I find it very interesting how much, and what kind of attention a photo gets.
I realize that the quality of photos on my flickr stream certainly is compromised because I upload so many, but seeing reactions or the lack of it is a learning process, sometimes also gratifying.
One can understand or guess why a photo is viewed more often, maybe because it is 'cool' or otherwise fashionable, or commented on, maybe for social reasons?
Sometimes a photo gets attention for quality too!..or simply because it is a photo of a lens Very Happy


PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Kuuan wrote: Sometimes a photo gets attention for quality too!..or simply because it is a photo of a lens

That would be.....ME! I love to look at images of lenses. Laughing
Just one of those things that I enjoy, not sure why, except it is fun to look at engineered items and stylish pieces of metal and glass (and plastic).


PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 7:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
kuuan wrote:

I find it very interesting how much, and what kind of attention a photo gets.
I realize that the quality of photos on my flickr stream certainly is compromised because I upload so many, but seeing reactions or the lack of it is a learning process, sometimes also gratifying.
One can understand or guess why a photo is viewed more often, maybe because it is 'cool' or otherwise fashionable, or commented on, maybe for social reasons?
Sometimes a photo gets attention for quality too!..or simply because it is a photo of a lens Very Happy


Flickr is pretty misleading.

First of all is heavily influnced by "trends" and "fashions". Second as I stated above PC screens are a completely different medium than printed paper. They have a lot more contrast, especially LCD which are retroilluminated.

So on Flickr a saturated, HDRish or textured image catch the attention of the viewers a lot more than a delicate toned B&W which is usually washed out in uncalibrated LCD screens.

Try to print the former images and you will have just bloat of colors (most of the times with banding artifacts) or, in the case of textures, muddy grays that look very fake (just like the photo of a painting).

So I'm not saying that one can't have fun with Flickr, just that I find pretty a waste of time working on an image that couldn't be printed for an exposition or in a book.

I'm not a purist, I'm just practical Wink


PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 8:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Andreas wrote:
At first, photography is just a pleasure for me. But in "real live" I'm often in contact with "artists". My experience is that 98 % out of them are just a kind of "dedicated follower of fashion". Always the same pic's, unbelievable that each one believes that he's unique.
At second, if I have to work hard in Photoshop to enhance my photo there must be something wrong. Either change the lens (5%) or change the photographer .
Andreas


I am basically of your opinion.
I never work hard in photoshop on a photo. All my photoshop work usually is limited to removing that sensor dust spot. Other simple work (reframing, adjusting white balance or saturation) I do directly in the RAW software.
Very rarely I make an exception when I have a very special and not replicable photo that needs to be rescued. But that happens, like, one time a year.
I agree with your concept: if I need to work hard in Photoshop on my photos, then it means that I've been sloppy or plain wrong at the shooting time. Which then usually means that unless exceptional cases, the photos do not deserve all that work to be saved.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kuuan wrote:

whores and pros are working for money,
the payment on flickr is not in cash but by attention, view counts, maybe recognition?

I find it very interesting how much, and what kind of attention a photo gets.
Ah, if I knew the answer to that, I'd be rich. Smile The most unexpected flickr pics of mine get more attention than the ones I thought would get. Whatever, I don't really care all that much because I take and publish pics that please me, one way or other, and if some others like it, then fine.
Reminds me of when I was flogging repro art prints years ago - the highest sellers were the cheesy ones. All those thousands of houses with weeping children on the walls Smile


PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 6:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Laurence wrote:
Kuuan wrote: Sometimes a photo gets attention for quality too!..or simply because it is a photo of a lens

That would be.....ME! I love to look at images of lenses. Laughing
Just one of those things that I enjoy, not sure why, except it is fun to look at engineered items and stylish pieces of metal and glass (and plastic).


damn sexy things
for other viewers it's rather skin and vulptuous shapes Laughing

A G Photography wrote:
kuuan wrote:

I find it very interesting how much, and what kind of attention a photo gets.
I realize that the quality of photos on my flickr stream certainly is compromised because I upload so many, but seeing reactions or the lack of it is a learning process, sometimes also gratifying.
One can understand or guess why a photo is viewed more often, maybe because it is 'cool' or otherwise fashionable, or commented on, maybe for social reasons?
Sometimes a photo gets attention for quality too!..or simply because it is a photo of a lens Very Happy


Flickr is pretty misleading.

First of all is heavily influnced by "trends" and "fashions". Second as I stated above PC screens are a completely different medium than printed paper. They have a lot more contrast, especially LCD which are retroilluminated.

So on Flickr a saturated, HDRish or textured image catch the attention of the viewers a lot more than a delicate toned B&W which is usually washed out in uncalibrated LCD screens.

Try to print the former images and you will have just bloat of colors (most of the times with banding artifacts) or, in the case of textures, muddy grays that look very fake (just like the photo of a painting).

So I'm not saying that one can't have fun with Flickr, just that I find pretty a waste of time working on an image that couldn't be printed for an exposition or in a book.

I'm not a purist, I'm just practical Wink


I wished I could think of being 'practical' in preparing a photo to be printed for an exposition or in a book! Shocked
For me it almost only has been the internet.

Why to print photos in a book or to show in an exhibition? So that people will view them, maybe to make money or for fame or fun.
Is that so different to showing them on the internet, isn't that platform and it's reach just simply amazing?

Possibly viewing a good print is much better than viewing a photo on a good monitor, is it?

Farside wrote:
kuuan wrote:

whores and pros are working for money,
the payment on flickr is not in cash but by attention, view counts, maybe recognition?

I find it very interesting how much, and what kind of attention a photo gets.
Ah, if I knew the answer to that, I'd be rich. Smile The most unexpected flickr pics of mine get more attention than the ones I thought would get. Whatever, I don't really care all that much because I take and publish pics that please me, one way or other, and if some others like it, then fine.
Reminds me of when I was flogging repro art prints years ago - the highest sellers were the cheesy ones. All those thousands of houses with weeping children on the walls Smile



Fashions, trends..right now I am selling in a christmas market and if I were to offer what I would consider buying myself I'd loose a lot of money.
There I am the pro, the whore maybe, and I do it for money.
Putting photos up on flickr I do for fun, attention maybe, but that does not necessarily mean compromising for view counts.
Sometimes a photo I like very much does not get any attention, most I learn about my own peculiar taste.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 7:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kuuan wrote:

A G Photography wrote:
kuuan wrote:

I find it very interesting how much, and what kind of attention a photo gets.
I realize that the quality of photos on my flickr stream certainly is compromised because I upload so many, but seeing reactions or the lack of it is a learning process, sometimes also gratifying.
One can understand or guess why a photo is viewed more often, maybe because it is 'cool' or otherwise fashionable, or commented on, maybe for social reasons?
Sometimes a photo gets attention for quality too!..or simply because it is a photo of a lens Very Happy


Flickr is pretty misleading.

First of all is heavily influnced by "trends" and "fashions". Second as I stated above PC screens are a completely different medium than printed paper. They have a lot more contrast, especially LCD which are retroilluminated.

So on Flickr a saturated, HDRish or textured image catch the attention of the viewers a lot more than a delicate toned B&W which is usually washed out in uncalibrated LCD screens.

Try to print the former images and you will have just bloat of colors (most of the times with banding artifacts) or, in the case of textures, muddy grays that look very fake (just like the photo of a painting).

So I'm not saying that one can't have fun with Flickr, just that I find pretty a waste of time working on an image that couldn't be printed for an exposition or in a book.

I'm not a purist, I'm just practical Wink


I wished I could think of being 'practical' in preparing a photo to be printed for an exposition or in a book! Shocked
For me it almost only has been the internet.

Why to print photos in a book or to show in an exhibition? So that people will view them, maybe to make money or for fame or fun.
Is that so different to showing them on the internet, isn't that platform and it's reach just simply amazing?

Possibly viewing a good print is much better than viewing a photo on a good monitor, is it?



I'm still boggling about what you wrote.

Quote me a single famous or rich photographer whose portfolio consists of internet only images.

Yeah, prints are WAY better than viewing a photo on a monitor, why in the hell digital cameras has been produced to deliver 10MP images or more when all you need is a 800x600 compressed JPEG to be seen on a PC screen?

For this a toy compact digi camera of 8 years ago is enough, even equipped with a Shittonar lens.

Are we kidding?


PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
If photography is art then surely it isn't about slavishly sticking to the unaltered output of your camera, with all its limitations? The more I delve into photoshop the more essential I think it is: it is the dodge and burn tool of the modern age. I detest a lot of the HDR stuff but it is fine if it is done well and there are lots of other uses it can be put to (without degrading the image). Wasn't a large part of the work of an old-time art or advertising photographer done in the darkroom rather than in the camera? News is different.

This is a shot I took with a 6MP 300D back in '04. Although the original colours were nice to the eye the photo was dull and flat, this week I've given it a thorough going over, creating and merging three differently exposed versions of it and boosting the sky a bit. I'm sure some people will hate it and others will like it (it would be interesting to know what the opinion here is) - but I think it will sell fairly well. I think I could probably defend it as being some sort of art on the grounds that I made a serious effort to get what I felt was a good composition and I have worked on that to create something that reflects my vision of the scene.



This is not a film original, of course... Getting back to film, for me, one of the pleasures of using it again is the challenge of trying to get something really good out of an old piece of kit but I also appreciate the look that film creates and the clear distinction between digital commercial work and shooting film for my own pleasure. I guess that is what the Holga crowd are doing - but it is self-deception to wave your Holga (or Hasselblad) around at random and claim that whatever comes out of it is some kind of art. If they make the effort to compose develop and process the image properly, showing off their own vision, then I suppose it is a form of art, whether someone likes it or not.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 12:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Paul, my critique is not on the Holga per se, but on the fact that it becomes a cliché for people who want to show themself out as artists.

As if shooting with a Holga was a way to artisticize a picture.

As if the art wasn't in the act of selecting, framing and shooting a scene - as if it was in the particular medium.

It becomes like wearing a basque to show you're a painter like Picasso. Or to live à la bohémien to show that you are a "maudit" artist... that sort of things.

And, I'm not really angry towards the people who do it, rather towards a certain community of journalists, art critics, professors, who feed this attitude instead of criticizing it.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 1:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Paul, my critique is not on the Holga per se, but on the fact that it becomes a cliché for people who want to show themself out as artists.

As if shooting with a Holga was a way to artisticize a picture.

As if the art wasn't in the act of selecting, framing and shooting a scene - as if it was in the particular medium.

It becomes like wearing a basque to show you're a painter like Picasso. Or to live à la bohémien to show that you are a "maudit" artist... that sort of things.

And, I'm not really angry towards the people who do it, rather towards a certain community of journalists, art critics, professors, who feed this attitude instead of criticizing it.


maybe it is more of a live style of the ones who play well and the hopefully rich who finance the party, call it art and have a good time


PostPosted: Fri Dec 25, 2009 7:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well Orio, I do understand your frustration but I think art is in the eye of the beholder.

A artist with a good eye can make creative images with any camera. I have found quite a few interesting photos taken with Holgas.

Maybe its the attitude you despise and not so much the cheap camera?


I find all these images quite creative and very pleasant to my eye.

Holga




Holga



Holga



PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 7:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm going to go ahead and be "that guy".

Toy cameras and good photography, in my opinion, are not mutually exclusive.

I have a whole shelf of "toy" cameras. Not b/c they're fashionable or trendy, but b/c I love taking photos so much that I'll pretty much buy any cheap camera and play with it (the same reason I'll buy any inexpensive MF lens I see at a flea market). Many of mine are 110 cameras; I grew up in a time when they were a popular and affordable choice for kids, especially as presents. Most of my cameras were 110 or Polaroid growing up, and that no doubt has a big influence on my attraction to them as an adult.

Now I'll out myself: I own a Holga that's been modified with a waist level viewfinder, and I only use it with a Polaroid back, which probably makes me even more of an a-hole. I also have a Diana. And a Canon adapter for all of my Diana lenses. And a Holga lens for my Canon. I won't even go into my Polaroid collection.

The thing that draws me most to cameras/lenses like these is lack of perfection. Shooting for years on digital SLRs with L series AF lenses has inspired boredom in me. I know that I can create a perfectly exposed, crisp photo. Many in a row, in fact. Day after day. There is something wholly pure (again, in my opinion) about the possibility/likelihood of imperfection. It's relaxing, perhaps in some twisted way, when some of the control is removed from me and up in the air. I get what I get, and I know that there will be no retakes, no photoshop, just a picture.

I'm not going to lie. I'm a hypocrite; I have a tendency to roll my eyes when I see someone out at an event with a Holga, doing double exposures of people dancing and drinking. But, maybe that's what inspires them. I take pictures of bugs, so really, who am I to judge what someone else considers art?

The fact is film in general is "fashionable/trendy" right now. I see old NICE film cameras on the same types of people. Film is "cool" now that digital is more common, and a lot of people think the fact that a photo is shot on film alone makes it art. Sure, it's annoying. It's also annoying that people sink hundreds or thousands of dollars into dSLRs and lenses and have no desire to learn anything other than point and click on auto mode. But, somewhere in there, a few "photographers" will emerge.

At the end of the day, I have to defend it, even though I don't exactly disagree with the general theme of the post. You can put a Barbie camera in front of me, and I'll try to take pictures with it. I suppose I have a compulsion. At least it isn't food.

As for Flickr, I've always looked at it as a social networking site for people who like to take pictures. I'm not on it often, but I do add a lot of my photos, and I've met other local people I can swap lenses with or go on a photo hike with, etc. I realize that it's not the same for every person that uses it, but that's my two cents.

I had coffee today. Sorry.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 11:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="kuuan"][quote="Laurence"]Kuuan wrote: Sometimes a photo gets attention for quality too!..or simply because it is a photo of a lens

That would be.....ME! I love to look at images of lenses. Laughing
Just one of those things that I enjoy, not sure why, except it is fun to look at engineered items and stylish pieces of metal and glass (and plastic).

damn sexy things
for other viewers it's rather skin and vulptuous shapes Laughing[/quote="kuuan"]

Don't worry too much about me, kuann....voluptuous is nice too, for sure. Smile

This is an interesting thread, and it certainly entertaining to see how passionate the views are. Lots of "hold it close to the chest" photographers, but an equal number of "everything is okay" photographers.

However, Haley has put it in a perspective that is really a winning view. Doesn't get overly passionate about it, just straightforward in saying what is on her mind without any ego. Great response.

I hope the thread continues, but it's probably dying out now. Darn it.


PostPosted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 4:57 am    Post subject: Re: I can't stand them anymore Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
I can't stand anymore all those wannabe artists who think that it's enough to use a holga to become an interesting photographer. Who go to the big cities to take time and time and time again the same old urban photos that are the copy of a copy of a copy of copy, and think that to "aesthetize" it by adding excess saturation, or grunge effects, or vignetting, or soft focus, is enough to make the photos artworks.
Who don't care about the substance of the subject, but only about the iconic status of the subject (trendy/not trendy).
Who are full af aesthetism and poor of substance.
Who drown their photos in Photoshop soup because they are unable to handle the pure image.

I am an anticonformist to the extreme, in this age of pseudo gothic post modern baroquism I want to go the opposite way, the most essential, nude, crude photography, zeroing the postwork to the absolute essential, relying on what is in front of me only, and on my ability or lack thereof to interact with the scene.

Sorry for the rant - I received the nth invitation to a urban Holga photo exhibition and the nausea got hold of me.
Rolling Eyes
YES, YES, YES. Orio, I'm with you. And you can not imagine this led to fashion photography.
Amateur photographers are great professionals.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Art Talk
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3