Can't take it anymore

[Alex Hawley]

I tend to agree with you Grace. There is a lot of repetition in the subjects people post. Myself, I can't stand to look at the PhotoNet gallery. Same Ol', Same Ol', Same Ol', day after day after day.

Why does this happen? I think because these are the subjects that SELL. Not just in the literal sense that people pay money for them but because they attract VIEWs and hence, popularity. We all want acceptance, we all want praise. I think often that drives people to take what they take. But not in all respects of course. Maybe these same subjects have a lot of universal attraction to photographers as subjects. Therefore we, by nature as photographers, tend to concentrate on those attractive subjects.

What about creativity? Coming from outside any artistic community, I will offer this. From many years in the engineering field, I have learned that creativity is not about inventing something entirely new, but rather by skillfully using what is already known, applying it is a slightly different way to arrive at a unique solution that solves the problem. Maybe then, what has been "created" is refined. The refinement comes by exploring the different combinations that the variables allow, fine-tuning the technique if you will. Once the process is nailed down, you understand it intuitively, then in, my experience, the really creative application begins to flow.

When this point of proficiency is attained, then one can feel they just doing the same old thing. A look at several photos taken over a year's time may show this repetition. Now we look to break out of the box but when we do, its not accepted as much as the more familiar subjects were. So in order to retain acceptance, many fall back into the established comfort zone.

Maybe what you are saying Grace, is that you wish more people would break out of that comfort zone, do something that maybe doesn't sell as much, but pushes the envelope of that self-established comfort zone we all seem to have.

Hey Jorge, what Mission did you say you found the nude friars at? (Talk about exiting the comfort zone - :rolleyes: )

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

I'm all for creativity and doing something different (hence my still life and other unclassified stuff I occasionally post) but I would've preferred it to be worded a bit less irritably. Of course Grace knew she was going to hit people's hot buttons with her post -- hence her subsequent post of "Controversy -- cool" or something along those lines.

Personally, I do recognize that not all subject matter does or should appeal to me. I certainly wouldn't ask people not to post something, though, just because it's been done before. Everything's been done before. The initial post was designed to be inflammatory, and it was. Cool! Mission accomplished. Just keep in mind that it doesn't make much sense to be offended by the indignant and irritable replies.

If you want grey images, stick with Wal-Mart or Wal-greens processing and save yourself the trouble of scanning and posting.

Actually, I'm pretty proud of everyone for not biting Grace's head off over this statement.

 

[ChuckP]

We all keep making good images of the comfortable things. Images we're sure of. But maybe a better use of this forum's gallery is for the things we're unsure of.

 

[Art Vandalay]

I think the galleries are under-utilized. Not enough commenting is done as the threads inevitably become the center of attention. Unfortunately most of those rapidly devolve into inane chatter.

The question is why are the galleries not the center of attention? We all talk a lot about the final product but when the final product is shown often they receive only one or two comments. Maybe Grace is right and there's just not much enthusiasm when the subjects are so repetative.

Also what's up with the non-critique gallery??? Are we only supposed gush over them? Get rid of it.

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

Also what's up with the non-critique gallery??? Are we only supposed gush over them? Get rid of it.

I think there's value in having a "just wanted to share" gallery. After all, some people don't want critique, so why waste peoples time by forcing it into a critique gallery? I'd prefer to save that gallery for people who are actually seeking and open to critique.

 

[Art Vandalay]

some people don't want critique, so why waste peoples time by forcing it into a critique gallery?

Waste their time? I'm not sure I follow you.

I guess I just feel good about putting something up that people are free to dislike and say so.

 

[Nige]

I've decided "Critique" galleries don't really work because the participants aren't prepared to put in the time, thought, whatever... that's needed to analyse every image posted. Have a look at any critique site and it's the same (ones with voting and scoring are many time worse IMO). It's very easy to post stuff, not so easy to critique others. Many images sail through the system with lots of 'views' and minimal comments. If no-one posted 'I like it', 'nice' comments, there would be even less.

There's a thread on the large format site today that I thinks worth reading. http://largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/499963.html

I browse the gallery a little, comment less and rarely upload. You could remove the galleries and I wouldn't miss them. I come to APUG for the technical discussions.

Now it's time to climb back into my box...

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

Waste their time? I'm not sure I follow you.

I mean that if someone posts in a critique gallery because there's no "just sharing" gallery, and they really aren't open to critique -- well, then anybody spending time making a thoughtful, constructive critique has wasted his time. No point in critiquing if nobody's listening.

 

[roteague]

I've decided "Critique" galleries don't really work because the participants aren't prepared to put in the time, thought, whatever... that's needed to analyse every image posted.

Nige,

I can understand where what you are trying to say, it is easy to get frustrated with the "Nice photo" type of comment. But, that is part of the critque process as well, sometimes a photo doesn't really require a "critical" comment. For example, Graeme Hird just posted some images to the Critique gallery, and I can't for the life of me see where they could be improved any.

Take heart,

 

[david b]

I was about to do a G&W photo of a naked woman, sitting with her cat, next to a waterfall with a moutain and steel mill in the background.

Guess I should do something differently.

 

[Nige]

you know Robert, if I ever created a critique site I'd have a radio button captioned 'nice' that sends a msg to the owner (or maybe just a total no of 'nice's) which allows someone to register their enjoyment without showing up on the screen (i.e. only the images owner gets to see it) There would be no need to post 'nice's and those opposed to them wouldn't get to bitch about them either, nor know if anyone had dared to click the button!

BTW, nice avatar!

 

[Art Vandalay]

I guess critiques have gotten a bad name because often people associate them with negative and even insulting comments. But it just means that you are free to say what works for you and what doesn't. I think this site is very civilized and any comments that aren't glowing will be given without insults or slurs. Some good discussions might even come out of it.

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

Oh, I think critiques are a good thing, as long as people posting are open-minded and willing to listen to (although "agreeing with" is optional) what people have to say.

 

[Graeme Hird]

Nige,

I can understand where what you are trying to say, it is easy to get frustrated with the "Nice photo" type of comment. But, that is part of the critque process as well, sometimes a photo doesn't really require a "critical" comment. For example, Graeme Hird just posted some images to the Critique gallery, and I can't for the life of me see where they could be improved any.

Take heart,

Robert,

I'm glad you noticed them, and I thank you for the compliment, but my point in posting them was that the gallery is for critiquing images. If she's looking for images that are already perfect, she's in the wrong area. People are posting there because they think the image is lacking something (very few images are perfect) and they want help to improve.

If Grace really can't "take any more" of those photos, she needs to get in there and critique the photo carefully: explain why she thinks the image is boring or the subject over done. Tell the photographer how it could be improved.

If someone offers a valid critique of my images, I'm all ears. If they want to winge because I choose to photograph a subject that's been done already, I'll ignore them.

Cheers,

 

[Art Vandalay]

People are posting there because they think the image is lacking something (very few images are perfect) and they want help to improve.

That's not why I post there, necessarily. I feel good about the photo but I'm interested to see how others view it, even if it's not well received. However, I suppose if I got lambasted enough I might switch to the standard gallery...or not post at all!

BTW I agree with roteague about your posts.

 

[Andy K]

I come here primarily to learn. I have been photographing for thirty years, mostly with an old russian rangefinder, now I want to take things a little more seriously and have taken the plunge into developing my own bw negatives. Soon I hope to acquire an enlarger and so on...

Occasionally I climb out of the box. I put my SLR and Rangefinder on the shelf, I then take my little Lomo LC-A out of it's box, put in batteries and go snap some fujicolor at random. But there is a site dedicated to that kind of photography, (you can see a little of what I have done with that here www.lomohomes.com/Minitar1 ) so what's the point in posting any of that here on APUG, where it would look totally out of place? (Unless people want to see double exposures made with a cheap russian p+s!)

I learn a lot from work posted by others, I may not always comment but I do look at a lot of stuff in the galleries, I read which films/developers/lenses/apertures were used, regardless of what I, personally think of any particular image. Some subject matter may do nothing for me but I can appreciate a well made photograph regardless of it's subject.

As for 'am I an artist'? That's not for me to decide.

But a 'nice photo' comment, does keep me encouraged and makes me try harder...

 

[TPPhotog]

I wonder if there is any subject that isn't boring to someone who isn't shooting or interested in that specific subject within photography?

I know we've got into this on other threads and it's a re-occuring theme. After an earlier thread I had a dig around and found a picture I mentioned which I shot and chose the cropping for this year. However although I felt it was reasonably fresh for me, I later found a similar one in a 1952 edition of Picture post.

Botton line is though folks that we shoot what we want to shoot because it's what interests us. We paid our monies and now we're shooting what we like.

Btw I like his version better damit but mine was a street shoot so I had no control

 

[rogueish]

I am a regular visitor to the galleries here, standard, tech, critique and alt opps I mean experimental. I scan through all the images, click on the ones that interest me, and sometimes make a post or two. I'm not by any means a really good photographer/printer or highly tech minded, so I rarely make critiques (twice I think usually on the easily spotted stuff eg: perhaps a little extra burn on the left side). If I think a photo is good, I sometimes post "nice shot" or "like it" If I don't like it, I usually don't post anything, if I even click on the thumbnail at all. I'd like to think that I have learned from them
I have posted a select few,(all gone now) even a couple in the Critique gallery. I got feed back on some, none on others. I was happy with the critiques, and general comments, was even happy when all I got was a few views (at least someone looked at it).
I say "Damn the torpedoes and keep the galleries!" Browse don't browse, viewers choice.
After all this is a photo site.
Oh and TPPhotog, nice shot! Like the tones and the way you captured her concentration. I like yours better.

 

[Andy Tymon]

I don't know if this has been touched on but I think part of the repetition we see is due to the way we learn how to make photographs. For the most part we learn from books, magazines and other photographs, so to quote Fred Sommer" images are about images". what pictures would we make if we had never seen other photographs?
I think we can all agree that at some time we have all used a photograph as a model to get us making pictures and they are a great way to start us off on a voyage of discovery.Ansel adams did it, Emmet Gowin admitted he did it, it's hard not to we are bombarded with images continuously. When I started photography the hardest part was not technical, but of what to photograph. If we have no idea then we turn to other photographers and see what they did and do as they did.

As to what we can do about it, who knows? I think we owe it all to ourselves to at least have a brief history of the medium and be aware of whats gone before. Maybe we will reach a point and discover everything has been done and all thats left to do will be re-photographs of whats gone before. Maybe making re-photographs of our rapidly changing towns and cities is a worthwhile project and hey we all know how to make photographs archival right,and it would be nice to know that 150 years on they could pull our prints out of the archive and I wonder who(insert your name here)was.

One last bit to this ramble, photography is time based but why are there so few sequences of images made of the same subject over a period of time? My favourite is Nicholas Nixons pictures of the Brown sisters, this is what photography is good at.

 

[Doug Bennett]

There are several levels here:

First, there is an idea or a concept: "I'm going to make a photograph of a waterfall with the flowing water blurred." Been done a million times, and certainly sounds boring.

Second, there is the representation of this on the Internet. It may be a print that has been well scanned and looks great, or it may not. The viewer may be looking at it on an ancient, uncalibrated monitor. Who knows? The stuff in my gallery here on APUG looks OK here at work (with a nice, new monitor), but looks horrible at home on my older monitor.

Last, there is a print, made from a properly exposed and developed negative, on a fine paper, by someone who knows how to print. It is then mounted and displayed beautifully, to be experienced in person. In this situation, I've rarely thought "boring" or "trite."

 

[bjorke]

It's simple, Grace: DON'T TAKE IT

Don't make pictures you think are hackneyed, trite, pointless, masturbatory, camera clubbish, whatever. Ignore them when you see them.

Now what's left? The good stuff! and there's plenty. No need to waste your time worrying about being nice or egalitarian. You only have so much time to waste.

http://www.botzilla.com/blog/archives/000219.html

 

[TPPhotog]

Oh and TPPhotog, nice shot! Like the tones and the way you captured her concentration. I like yours better.

Thank you I must admit I'd have liked mine more (if you will excuse the phrase) she had her head down.

 

[Graeme Hird]

That's not why I post there, necessarily. I feel good about the photo but I'm interested to see how others view it, even if it's not well received. However, I suppose if I got lambasted enough I might switch to the standard gallery...or not post at all!

My apologies Art, I made a gross generalisation by projecting my own motivations.

Not everybody posts there for the same reasons I do.

 

[djklmnop]

It's easier to talk about photography than actually apply it.