Dunning-Kruger Effect: Why you're not as good a photographer as you think you are

E. von Hoegh

Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
6,197
Location
Adirondacks
Format
Multi Format

eddie, put him on ignore and dont' feed the troll
chicago ![/QUOTE]
+100.
My digital camera is a Nikon Coolpix 995, 3.2mp of digital glory.
Am I a "serious photographer?" I dunno. I'm certainly competent, does that count?
 

trendland

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Messages
3,398
Format
Medium Format
Yeah - but I would not give USD 6000,- (and that is real cheap in comparison) for a digital print
wich is made on a bad printer. ....

To sell this with a motivation :" Look what we have here is not a normal print pls. notice the difference in ink what you are buying here is quite a unique (No. 47 of 200 other uniques) - damned !
Is a real business just to be done from Art gallerists !

with regard

PS : I guess the numbers of prints is cataloget. But with every New ",limeted edition" the market has to react. At last typical form of criminal fraudsters. Some Art gallerists indeed are arested meanwhile.
 

faberryman

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 4, 2016
Messages
6,048
Location
Wherever
Format
Multi Format
As usual, I have no idea what any of your last post means.
 

trendland

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Messages
3,398
Format
Medium Format
Most film photographers don't destroy their negatives, so like digital, you have to trust the integrity of the individual on editioned prints.
Yeah trust them....(I'll better will not pay for it and better make my own prints).

with regards
 

trendland

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Messages
3,398
Format
Medium Format
eddie, put him on ignore and dont' feed the troll
chicago !
+100.
My digital camera is a Nikon Coolpix 995, 3.2mp of digital glory.
Am I a "serious photographer?" I dunno. I'm certainly competent, does that count?[/QUOTE]

Hope it isn't going about me?
If this isn't true your definition of troll probably is : Someone who should not have other meaning or is able to LOOK at thinks from different perspective ?
Yeah that should better ignored - what a nonsence sometimes is going around here...!

Seriously the controlling of an edition from buying photograpical Art is an issue of interist and strange in comparison of painted art where a unique is a real unique.
By the way : the whole Art business is to speculate on phantastic earnings and so it isn't real Art any more.

with regards
 

trendland

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Messages
3,398
Format
Medium Format

It is just going about to criticize an upcomming Art speculative bubble.

with regards

It begann with " modern Art" it proceed with "modern photography Art" and it will end with digital prints of digital photography (no way to have same issues with chemical prints)..

with regards

PS : Sure it is the same....
 

trendland

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Messages
3,398
Format
Medium Format
It is not often seen but yes sometimes such stupit guys you never expected, are real good photographers. To know about photography may help a lot. But technical concerns (wich might be an unbreacable wall to newbys) are no guarantee to be good (to those who might feel best involved).
At the end photography isn't the tool wich is responcible for anything. It is much less than a tool.
It is allways the brain wich will make you superior (if you indeed have such intention).
So it is no opposition at last - because the last idiot may have a special genius to bring him into the Hall of fame......

The only remaining question is : what is your intention? To come in the Hall of fame ?
Caution : because if you'll be just there you'll never find a comfortable way out ...

with regards
 

pocketshaver

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2019
Messages
34
Location
usa
Format
35mm
It is simply absurd that digital cameras make images for photographers, any more than film cameras make images for photographers. This is the same tiresome and petty film vs. digital argument that infects and diminishes this forum every day. Enough.

With the features on modern cameras, and the capabilities of modern editing software, one really does need to think about this.

A photo can be good or bad on a technical level, to bright, to dark, focused or not so well focused. That's easy enough to understand. But with digital editing of digital photos, with enough time I can take a photo of the girl down the street kissing a teddy bear become a photo of her kissing my other neighbors dogs bottom. And with more time, I can turn her white shirt into a red shirt. Or make her hair a different color.

The Dunning Kruger theory should truly be based on this: As you take more photographs, and compare the newest with the oldest. Do you notice defficincies in the oldest ones?
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…