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

[E. von Hoegh]

This is the sort of comment you're prone to make which gets a strong response from me (and others). It's pure bullshit, and meant to subtly insult those who don't share your "digital superiority" views. Many "serious" photographers work without DSLRs. I can't speak for anyone else, but I have never owned a DSLR. My only digital camera is a Canon S70 I bought in 2005, I think. I also have an iPhone, but I've never used either for anything important. I can assure you, though, I take my photography very seriously, from the creation to the exhibiting to the selling.

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?

 

[faberryman]

...and often times in the middle of an all film based post someone
will start spouting all sorts of digital and ink jet propaganda...

And is roundly hounded down.

 

[trendland]

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]

As usual, I have no idea what any of your last post means.

 

[trendland]

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]

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]

It might as well still be APUG. Of 76 threads today, 75 were Analog, one was Hybrid, and none were Digital. Of the latest 100 media posts, 83 were analog, 7 were hybrid, and 10 were digital. This is how it usually is. I'm not seeing the same big shift to digital around here you are.

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]

I disagree with this, I think the more you actually know about a subject matter makes you a better photographer. google House Calls a NFB documentary and see how having a in depth knowledge of a subject is advantageous... Spoiler Alert, my hands start the movie, this body of work hung in the ROM for 14 months and 1.8 million viewers saw the show.

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]

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?

 

[removed account4]

About 20 years ago I saw such a book in the photography section of a bookstore - the book was entirely photos of manhole covers. Amazing work - sorry that I don't remember the title or photographer.

hi theo
was it this : https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/manhole-covers ?
you can trace the gas and industry in any town or city by looking at its pig iron