the great schism of photography

[Sirius Glass]

Y'all are getting a bit over the top analytical. But none of you are technical people right?

I am but I do not feel like wasting the bandwidth on this pseudo-topic.

Amusing as it is to read, it is not worth the effort. :munch: :munch:

 

[Roger Cole]

I think you're dead on here. This has been my own personal observational experience over decades, and the same anecdotal experience of so many others I have known.

One example, the very best software engineers I have ever known have been almost exclusively members of this club. Focused like a laser to the exclusion of all else in life, but able to see the connections and abstractions that the rest of us routinely miss. And to do it with ease, at times almost as an afterthought, and often honestly and truly surprised when others don't see the same things.

I've always been fascinated by high intelligence in others. These are very, very interesting people with which to interact. They are not like the rest of us, for sure.

Ken

There's a difference between high intelligence and highly creative. They can exist in the same person but often don't and seem to me to be distinct.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk and 100% recycled electrons - because I care.

 

[Roger Cole]

LOL HAHAHA sure do, but only if they have a LF camera,
cause the world of photography KNOWS you can only be technical and creative or both
if you have an ENORMOUS LF CAMERA !!
otherwise they are nomadic ... and wander the depths of the interweb

Nonsense. It's a specialty forum for people with that interest. I've never detected any snobbery about smaller formats and most people there do shoot smaller formats. My favorite threads there are the ones of smaller format linages. I've commented before that I think working in LF gives a different vision development that people often carry to other formats. I know my 4x5 experience has drastically improved my medium format photography.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk and 100% recycled electrons - because I care.

 

[removed account4]

There's a difference between high intelligence and highly creative. They can exist in the same person but often don't and seem to me to be distinct.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk and 100% recycled electrons - because I care.

that is sort of what this thread is about, because there is a difference between a highly intelligent perfectly executed, tecnically perfect photograph and one that is creative
that the person who made it didnt' spend 2 hours setting up, and executing the exposure after 3 hours of meter readings, and consulting exposure charts &c
and then just developed, translated the negative and printed it without 7 hours worth of negative masking techniques and scientific technical prowess to bring "exquisite" micro contrast...
after all it was just a photograph of a kitten playing with a ball of yarn ...

 

[removed account4]

Nonsense. It's a specialty forum for people with that interest. I've never detected any snobbery about smaller formats and most people there do shoot smaller formats. My favorite threads there are the ones of smaller format linages. I've commented before that I think working in LF gives a different vision development that people often carry to other formats. I know my 4x5 experience has drastically improved my medium format photography.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk and 100% recycled electrons - because I care.

roger, the forum has changed over the years when they have begun to allow photography threads and the safe haven for smaller formats.
previous to that, during the early years i was engaged with it on lusenet, on Pnet and after the migration if you spoke at all about anything but techique
brows fiurrowed and people said cranky things .... things are different now, sometimes, but with some folks there, it is the same as it was in 2001

 

[frank]

http://m.mentalfloss.com/article.php?id=64852

Tortured artist type

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Eventually those people always seem to move on to LFF.

If you visit LFPF be sure not to mention anything about Caitlyn unless it's kissy-kissy... and never react in any way to a personal jab from a protected member.

BTW, this thread gives me a headache. I know nothing and I like it that way.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Better to spend three minutes practicing recognized excellence when doing something, rather than a lifetime trying to spin mediocrity into some new type of unrecognized excellence.

Ken

 

[removed account4]

If you visit LFPF be sure not to mention anything about Caitlyn unless it's kissy-kissy... and never react in any way to a personal jab from a protected member.

BTW, this thread gives me a headache. I know nothing and I like it that way.

i shall call you so-crates !

 

[removed account4]

Better to spend three minutes practicing recognized excellence when doing something, rather than a lifetime trying to spin mediocrity into some new type of unrecognized excellence.

i guess, but a kitten with a ball of yarn on flickr is still a kitten with a ball of yarn on flickr ..
maybe to some it might be recognized as "excellence" but to others it might still be the 8x10 negative painstakenly exposed
and developed in abc pyro contact printed with amidol that looks like a desaturated cellphone picture of a cat with a ball of yarn ...

yes i know that can be said for any photograph ..

... because it really doesn't matter

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

i shall call you so-crates !

Thank you, kind sir. That makes my temporary LFPF ban completely worth it.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

You got banned from a photography forum? Man I get banned from motorcycle (Harley) forums. I'm a saint 'round these parts.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

You got banned from a photography forum? Man I get banned from motorcycle (Harley) forums. I'm a saint 'round these parts.

Yeah, I think "Caitlyn" did it.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Yeah, I think "Caitlyn" did it.

Fess up, man, you did it to yourself. You knew it was a touchy topic before you posted. They could have banned you for life.

 

[Bill Burk]

Better to spend three minutes practicing recognized excellence when doing something, rather than a lifetime trying to spin mediocrity into some new type of unrecognized excellence.

Ken

This is a sweet thought...

Though it does provoke ideas. Maybe I can prove my photographs are worth something after all...

Sally Mann talked about mediocrity in her book Hold Still (that I just HAD to buy so I could finish reading it). Everybody's got something that's mediocre, but doing mediocre work is better than having nothing... something to that effect.

 

[Vaughn]

Nonsense.../QUOTE]

Thanks, Roger. I dislike the running down other forums...even on the LFF when folks run down APUG for its anti-digital discussions. I like both forums.

 

[MattKing]

Someone has to defend mediocre ....

There is nothing wrong with decent quality, good enough, good value for the money, enjoyable distraction, middling results and all those other things that might be described as mediocre.

In the right circumstances, a large amount of mediocrity is preferable to a tiny amount of excellence.

And sometimes unrecognized excellence actually is excellent (just unrecognized).

The test for me of value is whether there is at least some good in the result, and that a good result was the aim.

If one consistently achieves a good result, than elevating it to excellence is a laudable goal, but it is much better that excellence arises out of good than if it appears out of nowhere, unsupported by what surrounds it.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

The only valid defense for mediocre is as an end result of a failed but good faith effort to achieve excellence. Anyone can do mediocre and convince themselves it's excellent. Or good enough.

But if one doesn't strive for excellence, one will never know failure. And without failure one will never know the current limits of one's talent. As well as exactly where their next good faith effort at achieving excellence needs to begin.

It's not the end results, Matt. It's the mindset...

Ken

 

[removed account4]

Thanks, Roger. I dislike the running down other forums...even on the LFF when folks run down APUG for its anti-digital discussions. I like both forums.

vaughn:

i wasn't running down LFF, it was just a personal observation i have made after being there for 14 years. i still like going there too, but
i don't particpate there at all because at one point when i was active there i posted a questions or 1, and the response to my questoin was
" oh geez we have questions like this here on this website" ... the site has evolved an awful lot since then ... and its not a bad place, although it has its moments,
just like this ( or any other) "place" ... and the comment about non LF cameras being "toys" appeared HERE by a member of this, and LLF ... within the past week...
( and it is a mindset that i know others have ) ...

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Better to spend three minutes practicing recognized excellence when doing something, rather than a lifetime trying to spin mediocrity into some new type of unrecognized excellence.

Ken

Isn't that Lomography? I've watched the term - and the business - grow over the years and I still can't get my head around it. As far as I can see, it's using cameras and film that were at the bottom end of technology half a century ago. Not saying that some artistic photographs didn't come out of those old Brownie's, but probably more by accident than planning. Maybe this is another "anti-perfection," retro movement like vinyl records and tube amps.

I'm very open to someone telling me what I'm getting wrong.

 

[removed account4]

Isn't that Lomography? I've watched the term - and the business - grow over the years and I still can't get my head around it. As far as I can see, it's using cameras and film that were at the bottom end of technology half a century ago. Not saying that some artistic photographs didn't come out of those old Brownie's, but probably more by accident than planning. Maybe this is another "anti-perfection," retro movement like vinyl records and tube amps.

I'm very open to someone telling me what I'm getting wrong.

paul

i have spent the last jeeez since 1996 ( even before that since i used a hawkeye flashfun as a kid ) working with old brownies, cyclones, delmars, sureshots &c
and it is more than "luck" or "accident" getting images out of those cameras. it isn't anti perfection, but what one person thinks is good, bad or mediocre
another person might think is perfectly wonderful its all about taste ... not only does it takes an awful lot of skill and knowledge to know the limitations
of one's equimpent ( lo fi camera ) and to know what to do after one depresses the shutter. and i think that dovetails right into what matt said previous to this ...
that it is OK to take mediocre photographs &c ... what is "mediocre" to one person might not be middle of the road boring, trite, blaaah to the next because
everyone using a camera is at a different skill level, whether it is skill in composition, exposure, development interpretation/printing. i can't tell you how many photographs
i made 30 years ago that i edited out and didn't print, that i have looked at since then in the last 3 or 5 years and with distance, a new eye, more skill in composition and understanding
how to print/interpret the negatives the overlooked images have become the best images on the roll ... i passed over them thinking they weren't good, they were mediocre ...
besides what is mediocre to ME might be crap to you, or off the charts great to someone else. as said before, its a matter of taste.
i don't like kittens with a ball of yarn, but you might have 400 photographs you have taken in the last 50 years of kittens with balls of yarn and love them...

 

[markbarendt]

Because there is natural variability within a species, we are in fact all different. Eye color, shoe size, vertical leap, mental IQ. We and our individual characteristics all exist as points on a random distribution bell curve. Our positions on that curve for any given characteristic are fixed at conception with our genetics. Since we can't control who our parents were, we have no control or input over where we fall on that curve.

Because we can't go back in time, we must all just make the best of wherever fate chose to place us. The measure of a person's success in life is the degree to which they can fulfill their fixed potential for any given characteristic. The definition of success is therefore different for each of us.

Not a novel concept, but an obvious one. And hard for some to accept since many were raised to believe that "all men are created equal." Perhaps they are, or should be, in something abstract like human rights. But definitely not biologically.

I have every bit as much right to be a world-class gymnast as the next guy. Except I was born 6-feet 6-inches and 220 pounds. Try as I might, it ain't gonna' happen. I also once knew a gymnast in high school. She loved basketball. She was 4-foot 11-inches...

Ken

While there are outliers on any bell curve, it is also evident that the grand majority are close to norm.

IMO your gymnast and basketball argument doesn't work. The reason I feel that way is that it's not a matter of the laws of physics precluding one's success, instead it's a matter of human rules; the rules are an arbitrary social construct.

 

[markbarendt]

I'm very open to someone telling me what I'm getting wrong.

If I want a particular characteristic in a photo, I have a choice; use a tool that produces a result I can straight print from, or use a tool where I have to do a few proverbial backflips when printing or shooting to get the same result.

Certain lenses/cameras "naturally" bring certain characteristics to a photo.

For example my Holga is sharp in the middle then tends to vignette and get soft around the edges.

That's a characteristic, not a problem.

If I want that bit of character it is the best tool for the job, if I don't, it's not.

I truly enjoy that characteristic on many shots.

 

[blansky]

I think there are two issues at play here.

Mediocrity is to me unacceptable. No matter your present place on the learning curve and evolution as a photographer you should be trying for excellence. As good as you can be. You may still suck or you may be great but in both cases you should be "trying" to get better.

As for using tools that give certain looks, this is no different than putting the neg on the floor and grinding it. It's a conscious attempt at a certain look.

To me this is like distressed wood. Woodworkers work hard at taking something that was recently made and distressing and "damaging" it for a certain look. That's the same as a scratched neg print or a holga print or whatever tool you used to get something. Just like exotic printing methods are an attempt at a certain look and style.

 

[dpurdy]

I think there are two issues at play here.

Mediocrity is to me unacceptable. No matter your present place on the learning curve and evolution as a photographer you should be trying for excellence. As good as you can be. You may still suck or you may be great but in both cases you should be "trying" to get better.

As for using tools that give certain looks, this is no different than putting the neg on the floor and grinding it. It's a conscious attempt at a certain look.

To me this is like distressed wood. Woodworkers work hard at taking something that was recently made and distressing and "damaging" it for a certain look. That's the same as a scratched neg print or a holga print or whatever tool you used to get something. Just like exotic printing methods are an attempt at a certain look and style.

There is something that I am not much fond of. That is people who work out of control, not knowing what they are going to get, and then claim the results as their art. But that is just me I guess.